Full text of "Mormon Democrat: The Religious and Political Memoirs of James Henry Moyle"

See other formats

This edition of
Mormon Democrat:

The Religious and Political Memoirs of
James Henry Moyle

is strictly limited to
three hundred fifty copies,
of which this is copy number

167

MORMON

DEMOCRAT

The

RELIGIOUS

and

POLITICAL

MEMOIRS

JAMES

OENRY

MOYLE

/ was reared from childhood
a Mormon Democrat, then called the People’s Party,
a combination of Democracy and Theocracy and as purely so
as ever existed. Its chief motto or slogan in political
campaigns was: “The office should seek the man
and not the man the office. ”

MORMON

DEMOCRAT

The

RELIGIOUS

and

POLITICAL

MEMOIRS

JAMES

HENRY

MOYLE

Edited by

Signature Books
in association with
Smith Research Associates
Salt Lake City

Signature Books is a registered trademark of Signature Books, Inc.

Printed in the United States of America.

<*> Printed on acid-free paper.

First printed in 1975 in a limited edition by and for members of the
James Moyle Genealogical and Historical Association.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Moyle, James Henry, 1858-1946.

Mormon Democrat : the memoirs of James Henry Moyle / edited by
Gene A. Sessions.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 1-56085-023-X $75.00

1. Moyle, James Henry, 1858-1946. 2. Mormons— Utah— Biography.

3. Politicians— Utah— Biography. 4. Utah— Biography. 1. Sessions,

Gene Allred. II. Title.

F826.M795 1995

979.2’031’092-dc20

[B]94-40560

CIP

To my father, James Moyle,
and his two good wives,

Elizabeth Wood and Margaret Anna Cannell

Table

°f

CONTENTS

Editor’s Preface

Foreword by Leonard J. Arrington

Editor’s Prologue

xiii

Editorial Procedures and Acknowledgments

xxiii

I My History

II Young Mormon

III Missionary

IV Student

107

V Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat

131

VI A Mormon Politician

171

VII Assistant Secretary from Utah

199

VIII Mission President

239

IX New Dealer

265

X Observations on the Inheritance of

Church Leadership

291

Biographical Appendix

311

Index

365

EDITOR'S PREFACE

I n the more than twenty years
since the limited edition of Mor-
mon Democrat: The Religious and Political Memoirs of James Henry
Moyle was privately released to Moyle family members, I often had
occasion to wish that it had received a wider distribution. Although
members of the Moyle family graciously provided copies to librar-
ies on request, many scholars and others interested in Utah/

Mormon history lamented that the volume was not available for
private collections. The insights ofjames H. Moyle, particularly on
the subject of religion and politics in Utah, remain powerful and
cogent even as we enter the last years of the twentieth century. The
unique influence of the Mormon culture on the politics of the state
may have changed shape since Moyle’s day, but it continues to
attract considerable attention with evety political campaign and
every legislative session. Its value to the historian notwithstanding,

Moyle’s commentary thus makes much truth of the notion that
historical understanding broadens perspective and provides im-
portant background for a useful comprehension of any current
issue.

When Signature Books first suggested that Mormon Democrat
might fit nicely into its Significant Mormon Diaries Series, co-
sponsored with Smith Research Associates, I happily contacted
members of the family, now another generation still from those ix

Editor s Preface

with whom I dealt in the early 1970s. Evelyn Moyle Nelson and
Janies Douglas Moyle, who worked so tirelessly to carry out their
father’s genealogical and historical wishes, are both gone. Sara
Moyle Creer’s daughter Alice Creer Young now spearheads the
extended family effort to further the cause of history. Alice and
1 have carefully reread the memoirs in order to look one more
time for consistency and fairness. We both recognized that her
grandfather wrote with a frankness that could easily offend if
taken out of context. In the end we concurred with the judgment
of the previous generation of Moyles that, while pointed in his
commentary, James H. Moyle meant no offense and sought only
to express his views in an honest and constructive manner. This
second edition, therefore, is not a revised edition and contains
every passage from the first, with all of its candor and wealth of
description.

This edition does contain some editorial changes, all minor
and the result of my own evolving tastes in style. I have also added
to the notes a few essential references to recent scholarship but
limited that effort also in order to preserve the integrity of the
original edition. The only other real change from the first edition
is also in the footnotes. In the interest of space, I have not
referenced eveiy paragraph as I did in the first. Rather, a string of
paragraphs from the same memorandum shows the notation at
the end of the string only, except in cases of additional reference
or commentary.

LaRee Keller and Myrna Eberle at Weber State University put
in much suffering time on the present effort, as did Lesli Pantone
who employed her considerable editorial skills on the project. I
can never thank them enough.

FOREWORD

Leonard J. Arrington

S ometime ago the three living
children ofjames H. Moyle pre-
sented his papers to the Historical Department of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Among those papers were many
letters, memoranda, clippings, biographical manuscripts, and
other memorabilia. These have been catalogued as the James
Henry Moyle Collection and are available for the use of the family
and scholars in the church archives. A guide to these materials has
been provided to the family.

With the cooperation of the Mormon History Trust Fund, a
non-profit fund established to assist in the writing and publishing
of LDS history, there have been provided for the church archives
and for family use two publications edited by Gene A. Sessions.
The first of these is entitled A View of james Henry Moyle: His Diaries
and Letters. The second is Biographies and Reminiscences from the
James Henry Moyle Collection.

Among the Moyle papers donated to the church archives we
were delighted to find James H. Moyle’s handwritten “Memoirs.”
This was written over a period of several years after his 1940
release from service as Assistant to the Secretary of the United
States Treasury. Brother Moyle wrote the memoirs for his family,
but he indicates that he also intended them to be read by others
interested in Utah and Mormon history during the period of his

Foreword

life, 1858-1946. Recognizing that the memoirs make an important
contribution to Mormon, Utah, and American history, the Mor-
mon History Trust Fund, with financial assistance from the James
Moyle Genealogical and Historical Association, employed Dr.
Gene Sessions to use his editorial skill in reorganizing the mate-
rial so that it would make a smooth and consistent narrative and
to provide explanatory notes.

Copies of his edited transcript of the memoirs were then
furnished to James H. Moyle’s three living children. They have
made suggestions for the explanatory notes and have also sug-
gested the elimination of a few short passages which the author
himself would almost certainly have removed had he lived to
prepare the manuscript for publication.

I have read these memoirs with much interest. While James
H. Moyle was an ardent Democrat whose criticism of Republican
leaders shows his partisanship, he was also an active and devout
Latter-day Saint, and the sincerity of his testimony is evidenced
on every page of these memoirs. Thus, despite passages which
reveal his partisanship and limited observation, the reader will
be struck with the sincerity, honesty, and greatness of Elder
Moyle. Readers will surely accept these memoirs as James H.
Moyle’s desire to present an honest and faithful record of the
Utah political scene as he viewed it. Obviously he was critical of
some persons and of their actions, but he was tentative in ex-
pressing his opinion and showed magnanimity in forgiving those
persons he thought may have misused him. The memoirs are
testimony to the truth of the gospel, the greatness of Latter-day
Saint leaders, and the importance of the role played by James H.
Moyle in Utah and national politics.

EDITOR'S PROLOGUE

I n 1950 Mormon apostle Matthew
Cowley summarized his impres-
sions of the late James Henry Moyle in the following terms: “I
always had to take another look when I passed Brother James H.
Moyle on the street.” 1 Cowley’s memory of Moyle was a common
one, and though brief it was remarkably encompassing, for the
striking appearance of the man symbolized uncannily his involved
and ascendant life. Barrel-chested and six feet tall, he walked
erectly with long and forceful strides, his large, bearded jaw set
immovably to the fore. The steps of his life were analogously the
same; firmness, seriousness, and undeviability characterized his
demeanor until just before his death in his eighty-eighth year,
and yet he was a person of great love and devotion, of immeasur-
able loyalties. In short, he was an impressive man, the proverbial
great oak.

It is not the purpose of this prologue to recount in detail the
life of James H. Moyle; this volume ought to accomplish that task
in itself. It suffices to say at this point that the man lived in Utah

1 Transcript of funeral service, Alice Dinwoodey Moyle, 6 Apr. 1950, Box 7, fd
4, James Henry Moyle Collection, Library-Archives, Historical Department, Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, hereinafter cited as CLA. All refer-
ences hereinafter to box and folder (fd) are for items from this collection.

xiii

Editor s Prologue

as a devoted member of a growing but persecuted religious group,
the Mormons. Born in the pioneer surroundings dictated by
Mormon history and in the humblest of conditions, he witnessed
and participated in the evolution of that people from an isolated
and estranged community with segregative social institutions into
an emergent culture anxious to travel the paths of modern Amer-
ica. But Moyle had two religions by his own count, Mormonism
and the Democratic party. 2 He believed in both with an equal
fervor, and when they dashed, as they sometimes did in Utah
history, he managed to endure, suffering only minor scars. Indeed,
just before his death he held with coequal reverence the high
regard Franklin D. Roosevelt and Mormon president Heber J.
Grant had expressed for him prior to their deaths only months
before. He was a Mormon Democrat, and perhaps the most
complete owner of that title there had ever been.

Growing up in the old Fifteenth Ward on the west side of Salt
Lake City, Moyle had determined early that he would rise above
the humble surroundings of his childhood; he would become a
lawyer, even though the church looked askance at the legal profes-
sion. Concomitant with this early determination, however, was a
normal but eventful youth. His uniquely Mormon experiences
ranged from seeing his father take a plural wife to working as a
stonemason on the Salt Lake temple and standing guard over
Brigham Young’s body as it lay in state in 1877. Then, having
accepted completely the faith of his father, Moyle received a call
to be a missionary in the Southern States where he served with
distinction in North Carolina, most of the time as conference
president. After returning home late in 1881, Moyle requested of
President John Taylor approval of the church to go to the Univer-
sity of Michigan to study law. With much reluctance and following
a severe admonition to caution, Taylor blessed the young man in
his pursuit of an education.

At Michigan Moyle struggled with a heavy workload, meager
Finances, and a weak educational background, but through it all
he persevered and at the same time staunchly defended Mormon-
ism, which was then under heavy attack because of the practice of

2 Interview with James D. Moyle by Gene A. Sessions, 11 Aug. 1974, transcript
of eighteen pages, CLA, p. 7.

XIV

Editor's Prologue

plural marriage. He graduated with an LL.B. in June 1885 and
traveled home to begin his practice, but on the way he stopped in
Richmond, Missouri, for a lengthy interview with David Whitmer,
the last surviving member of the “three witnesses” to the golden
plates of the Book of Mormon. His education completed and his
faith entrenched, Moyle entered Utah politics. In 1886 he was
elected Salt Lake County attorney and in 1888 to the territorial
legislature on the Mormon People’s Party ticket.

In 1891 at the disbandonment of the People’s Party, Moyle
stated firmly his allegiance to the Democratic Party which brought
him inevitably into conflict with church leadership as it tried to
establish Republican parity among the traditionally Democratic
Mormons. Moyle continued to clash with church leaders over
politics, but managed to walk the tightrope, maintaining his devo-
tion both to party and religion. He ran unsuccessfully for governor
in 1900 and 1904 and finally for the Senate in 1914 on the
Democratic and Progressive tickets against Apostle-Senator Reed
Smoot. Following a narrow defeat in that election, Moyle set a
precedent for a Latter-day Saint when he was tendered an appoint-
ment as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Woodrow
Wilson administration.

After four innovative years in the Treasury, Moyle returned to
Utah and settled into his role as de facto dean of Utah Democrats.

Serving on the Democratic National Committee, he worked vigor-
ously for the nomination of William G. McAdoo for the U.S.
presidency in 1924. Disappointed in defeat and in the discrimina-
tory tariff policies of the party, he nevertheless remained on the
national committee until he voluntarily retired in 1932.

In the fall of 1928, at the age of seventy, Moyle was appointed
president of the Eastern States Mission of the church, which with
his three decades as a member of the high council (or executive
board) of the Ensign Stake he considered ample vindication of his
persistent course of loyalty to the church despite his political
disagreements with some of its leaders.

While in New York presiding over the mission, Moyle met with
Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt with whom he had served in the
Wilson administration. In the spring of 1933, following his inaugu-
ration as president, Roosevelt appointed Moyle Commissioner of
Customs, and in 1939, at the age of eighty-one, he became special xv

Editor s Prologue

assistant to Treasury secretary Henry Morgenthau. Withal, he
became an avid New Dealer and conducted strong campaigns in
Roosevelt’s behalf in Utah. This brought him once again into
conflict with some authorities of the church, but he remained an
unbending advocate of Mormonism. He died in February 1946
convinced to the end that his fidelity to both church and party
would prove ultimately consistent.

The scope of Moyle’s life and experience in Utah, Mormon,
and national history suggests by itself the great value of his
memoirs. But, additionally, he knew from close vantage nearly
every major religious and political figure in Utah during six
decades spanning two centuries, and further considered himself
“intimate” with several national leaders of the Democratic Party.
The consequent worth of his memories was fortunately apparent
even to himself, and though he saw benefit in them mostly for his
posterity, he was nevertheless painstaking in the preservation of
his papers that now fill twenty-one boxes in the archives of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City. They
touch upon virtually every facet of the Kulturkampf in Utah from
1885 to 1945. Moreover, his torn loyalties and sometimes over-
developed sense of criticism caused him throughout his papers to
paint meticulously the scenes of that great conflict as he engaged
actively in it, often from both sides.

Moyle’s role in this drama conformed naturally to his forceful
characteristics, a fact that worked both for and against him. Even
his physical appearance and bearing, so impressive to those who
knew him, affected the pursuit of his goals negatively as well as
positively. For while it signified strength and a sense of purpose
to his friends, it indicated aloofness, conceit, and intimidation to
many whose followership he might have otherwise earned. Con-
comitantly, his firm and unbending dedication to principle
sometimes took on colors of harshness, tactlessness, and self-
righteousness when set in the framework of the Moyle personal-
ity. With all of this seriousness and involvement in weighty affairs,

3 Frank Jonas, “Utah: The Different State,” in Frank H. Jonas, ed., Politics in the
American West (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1969), p. 331, believed that
this factor meant the difference in Smoot’s defeat of Moyle in (he 1914 senatorial
race.

XVI

Editor's Prologue

however, he was a real person who suffered as all humans do
under the burdens of life and at the same time experienced the
joys of family, friends, and achievement far above the average
among his peers. Even though they may have disagreed with him
in many if not most particulars, those who knew him well re-
spected him. No one ever questioned his honesty or devotion to
a consistent set of beliefs and life-standards, and despite the
nearly constant clash between his extreme religiosity and his
extreme partisanship, Moyle never wavered from his support of
both church and party, founding his faith on the fundamentals
of both and dismissing apparent inconsistencies among the poli-
cies of the two as results of human frailty.

There can be no claim that Moyle’s allegiance to the Mormon
church and the Democratic Party was unique during the period of
his life. Indeed, he was never numbered among the general
authorities of the church as were other staunch Democrats such
as B. H. Roberts and Anthony W. Ivins. In another sense, however,
his independence from the ruling councils combined with his
unswerving belief in Mormonism and his sense of judgment to
make him an outspoken conscience of the church and as well of
the party in Utah. It was impossible to challenge truthfully his
integrity or his complete devotion to Mormon and Democratic
principles, yet he freely criticized each institution and particularly
the inconsistent actions of (lie leadership of each. One fellow
Democrat called him the Savonarola of the Mormon church, but
in the same sense he sought to reform the Democratic Party in
Utah and the West especially with reference to regionally discrimi-
natory tariff policies and machine politics. Beyond this, Moyle
demonstrated an ability to act freely in making a choice between
conflicting church and party positions without denigrating his
ultimate faith in both causes. For example, he reluctantly aban-
doned Prohibitionism when he saw that Roosevelt would leave it

4 In 1928, for example, Moyle privately disapproved of the nomination of Al-
fred Smith for president and, in general principles, agreed more with the candidacy
of Herbert Hoover, but his loyalty to the Democratic Party dictated his open support
for Smith. On the church side of the question, the Deseret News editorial attack in
1936 on President Roosevelt shocked Moyle completely, yet it was after this point that
he wrote some of his most stirring comments about the greatness of HeberJ. Grant
and the final triumph of Mormonism as the apogee of true religion.

Editor's Prologue

behind as part of his new order in 1933. Hence, he built well the
podium from which he addressed his sermons, and few escaped
the sting of his didactics.

In the final sense, however, it is significant and unfortunate
that Moyle never learned the skills of compromise, that great art
of politics. More than occasionally his direct attacks alienated
those he wished to influence for the better. This was true not only
in his three major elections, but also as he tried to express his views
to close friends and even to members of his family. Despite all of
this, Moyle had no enemies, because, notwithstanding judgment
as to the rightness or wrongness of his positions, his opponents in
life could not find fault with the way he lived or with his dedication
to high principles. They could only criticize the manner in which
he had fought, with the meat ax rather than the scalpel (as he
characterized his actions). His friends could only lament that his
causes so often died with his inability to carry them tactfully to
fulfillment.

That we can recognize so much of Moyle’s introspection and
complexity, his weaknesses and strengths, is due in large part to
his own determination to keep an honest and accurate record.
During his entire mature life and especially after 1920, Moyle held
a great interest in genealogy and family history. This he had
inherited in some degree from his father whose records abound
with these concerns. But regardless of the source of this interest
in preserving for posterity the past, Moyle began to keep detailed
“memoranda for history” during his mission presidency in the
early 1930s. Initially, these were intended merely for the use of the
members of his family so that they might know what he had done.
But by 1937 he had come to realize that his experiences could be
of broader value. He thus opened correspondence with surviving
associates who knew elements of the stories in which he was
interested. Combining with personal recollections an insatiable
curiosity and a voracious reading habit, he developed a sense of
his place in the past and in the history of Utah, the church, and
Democratic politics.

Shortly after his retirement in the summer of 1940, Moyle
hired John Henry Evans, Mormon educator and popular biogra-
pher of church figures, to write his biography. Using interviews,
xviii letters, diaries, and the memoranda prepared to date, Evans began

Editor s Prologue

to write what he tentatively called “James Henry Moyle, His Life
and Times.” By 1944 Evans had produced hundreds of pages, a
prolix “long manuscript” which required reduction to more man-
ageable size for publication— a “short manuscript.” In the mean-
time Moyle was reading Evans’s chapters. His memory under-
standably piqued, he wrote long comments and corrections both
on the manuscript and in yellow legal pads that rapidly accumu-
lated in his small study. Additionally, he began to suffer insomnia.

Ordinarily, I go to bed about nine-thirty or ten, and after three to
four hours (sometimes less), 1 awake and cannot go to sleep for from
two to three hours more. During that time, and generally very soon
after I awake, my mind clears away any subject that 1 have not fully
explored and then reverts to some other subject that interests me.

On these occasions he took his pencil and pad in hand and added
further to his accumulation of written memorabilia.

Sensing that he would soon leave them and having basked in
the wealth of his experience all of their lives, his children also
encouraged him to record his memories. By the summer of 1945
his work on the “history” and his corollary study had long since
developed into something of an obsession as he felt the relentless
effects of age.

My family, and especially my wife, complain of my being too
quiet. It is a fact that when I am alone (if not too long) I am happy
with my thoughts more than anything else, though I continue to read
much, notwithstanding the great disadvantage in having to use not
only my eyeglasses but also a hand magnifying glass. That has been
the situation now for five years. I think better and clearer when I get
into the accustomed place and time for doing that important work.
I seem to have greater inspiration when there and at those hours,
which is very different from when I was young and in middle life and
even later. I found then that I could concentrate and do better work
late at night when the body was physically worn down and the
spiritual, intellectual self was the master. Now, as the day progresses,
I wear down; my mind and body diminish in power and strength and
I sometimes find myself unfit to do much. That has been lately most
manifest when 1 have worried about what I would say in my writings
at night. I have been humiliated with what I felt was a failure. That,

5 Memorandum dated July 1945, Box 12, fd 3.

Editor s Prologue

however, is not yet always the case, but I deeply regret it is the rule
rather than the exception. I wander as an old man will onto things
not so directly applicable to my subject. That is the case now in this
writing. I am so reminded that my time for being happy is when I am
alone or quiet. It is on those occasions that 1 think the deepest and
observe with the greatest profit. ’

By Christmas 1945John Henry Evans was mortally ill. The long
manuscript was uncorrected and the shorter, publishable version
incomplete. On that day Moyle himself entered the hospital for
the final days of his life. Within two months he was dead, a victim
of cancer and a refusal to undergo debilitating surgery. Evans
lingered for some time, but was never again able to work on
Moyle’s biography.

Sometime later Henry L). Moyle, the eldest son who had since
become an apostle in the church, gave the unfinished Evans
manuscript to Gordon B. Hinckley and commissioned him to
complete it. In 1951 Hinckley published James Henry Moyle: The
Story of a Distinguished American and an Honored Churchman (Salt
Lake City: Deseret Book Co.) which circulated mostly among
family members and then went out of print. There the matter
rested until I received a charge from then Church Historian
Leonard J. Arrington to work through the Moyle Collection to
determine its content and worth.

As I read the Evans manuscripts, the diaries, and then the
letters, I came to believe that there was a great need for more work
on Moyle because of the broad scope of the collection as it related
to paramount issues in Utah and EDS church history. Even so, 1
approached the task of reading the six containers of yellow note-
books with great reluctance. Cursory examination had indicated
that the handwriting was often difficult and the subject matter, as
Moyle readily admitted, greatly mixed. Furthermore, the pads
were usually filled on both sides; stacked up, they measured more
than two feet. After reading through only the first two notepads,
however, I realized that in the course of preparing these totally
unpolished memoranda, Moyle had written his own history in a
remarkably lucid manner. What 1 had before me were the notes

6 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1.

Editor s Prologuk

for a complete set of memoirs. Departed from the scene for nearly
thirty years, he could yet tell his own story with all of his opinions
and memories intact and devoid of the biographer’s inevitable
distortions. I would have to organize, select, and edit, but the end
product would be the memoirs of Moyle himself, presented for the
reader to pursue and interrogate.

To produce a readable book, I had to exercise some liberties
with Moyle’s words since I was drafting from rough notes. But as
the paragraphs of explanation on the following pages demon-
strate, those liberties were restrained and few. In addition, each
major event or thought in the edited memoirs is carefully refer-
enced, citing the original memorandum from which it was drawn.
In exceptional and rare cases, I used letters and other sources
quoting Moyle to derive missing paragraphs, but these likewise are
succinctly noted.

EDITORIAL
PROCEDURES AND
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

T wo judgment criteria dictated
the selection of paragraphs
from Moyle’s memoranda for inclusion in the memoirs. The first,
of course, was content, and the second was readability and lucidity.

But inasmuch as Moyle was not trying to write a final production
and was merely producing raw notes as he paced his mind with a
pencil and pad of paper, some revision apart from the selection
and organization process was necessary, as the following para-
graph shown in original and edited versions demonstrates.

Unedited Version

1 . With that preface I will feel freer to say some things that does
and had disturbed my mind, but thank God never soured it,
and with His help nothing ever

2. will. There is too much good in all good men to ever condemn
them whole. It is that

3. good which in the end counts and turns the ballance in their

favor. It is also my xxiii

Editorial Procedures and Acknowledgments

xxiv

4. my experience that the men who do things are more numerous
than we generally

5. realize. That with all their mistakes, in the final recounting, the
good outweighs the bad so much that the bad will finally be
out of sight and the good ever be in the light.

6. I have been trying to write about what I think bad and the good
has forced itself so strongly on my mind that I am left to won-
der whether what I have in mind is worth

7. the effort. It is the career ofj. Reuben Clark, Jr., in the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its influence on the af-
fairs of the Church as I have witnessed that deeply interests
me. I am made to realize that we are each opposed partisans
in politics

8. that make me at least unfitted for an impartial relations maybe
of even

9. the facts.

Edited Version

1. With that preface I will feel freer to say some things that have
perennially disturbed my mind, but thank God never soured
it, and with His help nothing ever

2. will. There is too much good in all good men ever to condemn
them wholly. It is that

3. good which in the end counts and turns the balance in their
favor. It is also my

4. experience that men who do good things are more numerous
than we generally

5. realize. With all their mistakes, in the final recounting, the
good outweighs the bad so much that the bad will finally be
out of sight and the good ever be in the light.

6. Whenever I have tried to write about what I think is bad, the
good has forced itself so strongly on my mind that I am left to
wonder whether what I have in mind is worth

7. the effort. For example, because of my deep interest in the
career ofj. Reuben Clark, Jr., in the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints and its influence on the affairs of the
Church, I am made to realize that we are each opposed parti-
sans in politics

8. and that may make me at least unfitted for an impartial relation
even of

9. the facts. But I must try.

As the above sample illustrates, I have worked carefully with

Editorial Procedures and Acknowledgments

the original manuscripts to preserve Moyle’s words with a mini-
mum of tampering, but it was necessary, for example, to change
wording for the sake of clarity and flow (see line 1). I have also
corrected grammar (2) and spelling (3). The insertion of a word
or the rewording of a phrase (4) generally satisfied occasions when
Moyle’s sentences failed to convey the meaning that the context
of the original paragraph indicated. Extraneous words detrimental
to the flow of the paragraph were removed (5), and words were
often added to provide smooth transition between phrases, sen-
tences, and paragraphs (9). Sentences were rearranged and/ or
subordinated to other sentences (6 and 7) to increase lucidity and
to smooth style. In other cases I used the editor’s pen simply to
rework the text where I believed literary quality should be im-
proved (8). But in all, I have zealously worked to avoid putting
words into Moyle’s mouth or altering in any way his thoughts or
his intent and meaning. I believe in conclusion that I have success-
fully carried the memoirs of James Henry Moyle to much the same
final form to which he would have brought them himself.

Though more than willing to take full responsibility for the
editorial work which has gone into this volume, I must offer special
thanks to some of the many who suffered with me through the
process while rendering valuable aid. The James Moyle Genealogi-
cal and Historical Association through its officers provided the
necessary impetus and funds to gather Moyle’s papers for deposit
in the church archives and to encourage a scholarly investigation
of their content. James D. Moyle and Evelyn M. Nelson were
tireless in this connection and in their efforts to see that accuracy
and thoroughness characterized the project. Church Historian
Leonard J. Arrington and his assistants, Davis Bitton and James B.

Allen, read the manuscript and were constantly available with
suggestions and answers drawn freely from their insightful knowl-
edge of Utah history. Brent Thompson, who organized the Moyle
Collection for the church archives, went out of his way to assist me
during my study of the collection. John Sillito’s help in preparing
the notes was additionally invaluable as was the diligence of
Church Historical Department editors Maureen Ursenbach and
Jill Mulvay. Most recently, Jim Kimball of the Church Historical
Library provided kind assistance. Deserving of a special mention
is Pauline Huber whose patience and perseverance during the xxv

Editorial Procedures and Acknowledgments

process of transcribing and revising the yellow notebooks made
this volume technically possible.

A final word of gratitude must go to James Henry Moyle
himself. His long and eventful existence, his redoubtable faith and
sense of purpose, and his strong character, whether or not one
agrees with his convictions and actions, could only serve to inspire.
For he believed fervently in honorable accomplishment, not only
for its sake only, but for the joy it can bring to life. And he lived
well to that end.

Chapter 1

MY HISTORY

My object in writing a history is not to sell it, but for the benefit
of my children and my posterity, so they may know what I have
done, what I have been through, what I have worked for, and what
I desire for my family. This history is written solely to throw light
upon the period in which I lived and the part I took therein, with
no thought as to when it would be published, what it would cost,
or what returns would be received therefrom. Certainly there is
no thought of making money thereby. My only selfish thought is
to dignify the Moyle family of which I am only a part, and the
posterity I may leave to honor that name. May God grant that the
name may forever exist among my descendants in perpetual honor
and usefulness. 1

To help me in the preparation of this history, I have employed
John Henry Evans, who has now (March 1943) given me more than
eighteen months of half of his working time, the balance being
devoted to the Sunday School Union. 2 I cannot say that I am totally

1 Memorandum dated Mar. 1943, Box 9, fd 7; James Henry Moyle Collection,
Library-Archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
Salt Lake City, hereinafter cited as CLA. All references hereinafter to box and folder
(fd) are for items from this collection.

2 Ibid. Evans worked on the Moyle biography until shortly before his death in
1947. He produced two incomplete manuscripts, a “long" and a “short” version.
These the family turned over to Gordon B. Hinckley who subsequently published
James Henry Moyle: The Story of a Distinguished American and an Honored Churchman
(Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1951). See the Evans manuscripts, Boxes 17-20.

Chapter I

satisfied with the work John Henry is doing; he writes much about
very little and very little about much, little that is comprehensive
and much about what is not comprehensive. 1 1 am especially afraid
that John Henry will not tell everything. Every note I have sent to
him has been “give the facts,” because I feel that my life story, told
truthfully, will be very faith-promoting for any young man in the
Church. '

Conversation with President Grant

It may be easiest to explain my apprehension over John
Henry’s work with the following incident. On March 11, 1943,
President Heber J. Grant invited us to ride with him and Sister
Grant, as they have done on a number of occasions. This was an
exception, however, because no one else was invited. Heretofore,
there were always three or four others invited, generally widows,
at least when we were present. The last two or three times,
President Grant sat on the front seat with Mrs. Grant. This time
he sat behind with me alone; Mrs. Moyle, when I accepted the
invitation, declined because of another appointment. That was an
excuse, however, because the appointment was with our daughter
Sara. My wife did not enjoy the President sitting in front and not
turning around when he talked, which he did very freely, often
repeating what she had heard before. And it was difficult to catch
all he said. ’

I think he changed seats when Alice declined and had no other
company in order to talk freely to me, because my cousin Wilford
Wood had asked John Henry Evans to disclose to him for President
Grant what I was saying in my history about the Church and the
Brethren. 1 told President Grant that Wood had made the request,
and that I had said that I would talk to him (the President) about

3 Memorandum daled May 1943, Box 10, fd 1.

4 Interview with Evelyn Moyle Nelson by Gene A. Sessions, 20 June 1974, tran-
script of twelve pages, CLA, p. 2. 1 included this statement because it accorded with
many other more lengthy comments on the same subject among the Moyle memo-
randa.

5 Memorandum daled Mar. 1943, Box 9, fd 7. “In his last years, President
Grant almost daily, when the weather permitted, took a long automobile ride in the
country or in near-by picturesque canyons. On these rides he and Mrs, Grant were al-
ways accompanied by relatives or friends.” Preston Nibley, The Presidents of the Church
(Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1971), p. 258.

My History

it. This I had also said to Bishop John L. Herrick and suggested
that he give the same to the President, which Brother Grant said
he had done.

I repeated the Wood matter and my willingness to talk about
it. I did not tell him that I was indignant at Wood because he had
gone to Evans surreptitiously and not to me. The President merely
and somewhat evasively admitted that Wood had acted in his
behalf. I do not remember his exact words, but he said no more
about it then.

We rode to the mouth of Parley’s Canyon, a favorite trip,
then on Wasatch Drive to Thirty-third South, then west and
home. I was going to Sara’s for dinner so I said I would leave
them at Third Avenue and A Street, and that I wanted to walk
farther and see the beautiful view from there. About two blocks
south of President Grant’s home, I said I would get out, but he
suggested that we stop at his house. So we did, and to my surprise,
when I went to get out, he did not, but said to Cannon Lund
(who was driving) that he could go and that he would have his
son-in-law take care of the car, which was parked at the side of
his home on A Street. It was evident that he wanted to talk with
me in strict privacy.

We remained a good part of a half hour, maybe more. Several
calls were made from his house to aid him in, but he refused.

As soon as we were alone, he said that he was anxious that I
not say anything in my history reflecting against President Joseph
F. Smith. He extolled Brother Smith, saying how true he was, and
that he was possibly the greatest President of the Church. Presump-
tively, Joseph Smith was in a class by himself, but he said nothing
indicating that. He said (though I do not remember his exact
language) that Joseph F. never deviated from the right. I asserted
that I knew of one deviation which he regretted. I had in mind
Joseph F.’s connection with my being removed as attorney from
the Consolidated Wagon and Machine Company and his son-in-
law, John F. Bowman, taking my place.

In the conversation I referred to the injustice and ingratitude
of the leadership of the Church for turning against the Demo-
cratic Party and fighting it through the leadership of Apostles
Francis M. Lyman and John Henry Smith, and to the strong
partisanship of President Smith. I was careful, however, not to 3

Chapter 1

refer to myself or to speak in a way to disturb the nerves of the
President. He had said to me that he was very weak and I thought
he looked it, more so than when we had ridden together several
months before. I called attention to the fact that the Republican
Party, from its first platform in 1856, bad declared against the
twin relics of barbarism “slavery and polygamy,” and that its
carpetbag officers came to Utah to reform and not to govern the
Mormons. 6 7

I knew he had of old agreed with me on the injustice of turning
against the Democratic Party, but he made no comment on that
subject; silence acknowledged consent, for if I had uttered an
injustice, he would have quickly expressed himself. I somehow
managed to keep it all in such fraternal, friendly conversation that
the President took it all in a good spirit. He then admitted that
Joseph F. was strongly partisan, but that men of strong convictions
generally were. To illustrate President Smith’s fairness, he said that
the Federal Bunch had tried to put Charles W. Penrose out of
business as editor of the Deseret News, and had in effect lied about
him to President Smith, but that he, knowing or later learning the
truth, denounced them severely and made Penrose his counselor
in the First Presidency. I said that President Smith had nevertheless
stood with them. He seemed anxious to put over the fact that
though strongly partisan, President Smith was always true to the
right and the great.'

6 Memorandum dated Mar. 1943, Box 9, fd 7. Moyle had a difficult time under-
standing how the church could favor the Republicans after all of this. Consequently,
he dwelt upon this idea in his notes (that the Republicans had always been against the
Mormons), often repeating this “twin relics” phrase as a symbol of that enmity. See Ev-
erett L. Cooley, “Carpetbag Rule— Territorial Government in Utah,” Utah Historical
Quarterly 26 (Apr. 1958): 106-29; Richard D. Poll, “The Twin Relic,” M.A. thesis, Texas
Christian University, 1939.

7 Memorandum dated Mar. 1943, Box 9, fd 7. The influential leaders of the
Utah Republican Party in the early 1900s were nicknamed the “Federal Bunch” by the
Salt Lake Tribune, because they were generally federal appointees of Senator Reed
Smoot. Among heads of the group were Edward H. Callister and James H. Anderson.
See William L. Roper and Leonard J. Arrington, William Spry: Man of Firmness, Gover-
nor of Utah (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1971), pp. 5, 68; Jan Shipps,

“Utah Comes of Age Politically: A Study of the State’s Politics in the Early Years of
the Twentieth Century,” Utah Historical Quarterly 35 (Spring 1967): 99; Frank H.

Jonas, “Utah: Crossroads of the West,” in Frank H. Jonas, ed., Western Politics (Salt
Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1961), pp. 274-76. Moyle considered his effective

My History

What I wanted to present to him was the policy of the Deseret
News toward me when I went to Washington as Assistant Secretary
of the Treasury in 1917. I called his attention to his advice to me
to accept the call because of the importance of it and my oppor-
tunity to be of service to our people, and the business sacrifice it
involved. I also referred to what B. H. Roberts had said in the
banquet given me by the leading men of the state, saying it marked
a new era in the history of the state, and to the praise given me by
the Salt Lake Tribune and Salt Lake Telegram (then not connected).
I repeated the importance all seemed to attach to the matter,
except the Deseret News, which had nothing to say about it, except
that the banquet was notable because of the fact that there was no
liquor or tobacco in evidence. To all of this, President Grant
offered no comment. So I said to the President that while I was
much interested in the foregoing 1 did not want to trouble him
with an answer. I said this to indicate to him what I would like
without specifically asking for it, because last year 1 requested an
interview relative to our history and was asked to put my question
in writing. 8

I had heard that of late he had greatly failed mentally. I had
not talked to him for several months, though 1 wanted to, about
these and other matters, and I was greatly surprised to observe no
evidence of mental degeneration. His mind seemed clear and he
understood more readily than I had anticipated. At last, Mrs. Judd
[Grant’s daughter] came out and insisted that it was time for him
to come in, and so he did, but not before he had gotten something
of what he wanted. Also, by that time we were enjoying ourselves,
laughing freely over old times.’ 1

A Remarkable Span of Experience

It is this kind of experience that I am afraid John Henry Evans
cannot deal with freely, because of his Church connections. I want
an honest history, a history that will be a contribution to the time

opposition to the Federal Bunch to be one of the great accomplishments of his politi-
cal career.

8 Memorandum dated Mar. 1943, Box 9, fd 7. See Salt Lake Tribune, 29 Sept.
1917, 30 Sept. 1917; Deseret News, 30 Sept. 1917; Salt Lake Telegram, 30 Sept. 1917.

9 Memorandum dated Mar. 1943, Box 9, fd 7. The president was eighty-six
years old at this time.

Chapter 1

in which I have lived. 10 For example, it seems to me that I have had
a remarkable experience in national politics. My Democratic Na-
tional Conventions spanned Five decades. I attended in Chicago
in 1884 when Cleveland was first nominated, also in St. Louis in
1888 (Cleveland again). I was in Kansas City in 1900 for Bryan’s
second nomination and in Denver for Bryan’s third in 1908. 1 was
in Europe when Wilson was nominated in 1912, but I attended
banquets at Baltimore and Washington the winter before the
convention of 1916. 1 saw Cox nominated in San Francisco in 1920.
I worked for the nomination of McAdoo in New York in 1924, but
Davis won it, and again in Houston in 1928 when Smith was
nominated. Finally, I witnessed the nomination of the great Frank-
lin D. Roosevelt in the Chicago convention of 1 932.

I have seen all of the Presidents of the United States since
Lincoln except Johnson, Garfield, and Arthur. I have met all of
them from Cleveland to FDR except McKinley. I dined at the
White House with Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. I
have served officially under three— Wilson, Harding, and
Roosevelt. I visited the homes of Hayes and FDR, and considered
myself intimate with Bryan. I also visited Cox in Ohio in my
capacity of national committeeman. 11

My public career commenced with my mission to the South-
ern States in July of 1879. It covers the period of agitation and
trial of the Latter-day Saints which followed that of the pioneer
struggle for existence. There followed afterwards a period of
peace and adjustment for the Saints as they moved into a new
era of social, political, financial, and religious amity with their
Gentile neighbors. This secured for them “prosperity, wealth, and
popularity,” and political supremacy in Utah with great influence
in adjoining and neighboring states. And finally, it changed the
Mormon people from a most despised group to the most re-
spected in the nation. I believe, for example, that there is a
greater employment in Washington (per capita) of Mormons than
of any other religion.

When I voluntarily left official life in Washington in July of
1940, there were three active, virile, and enthusiastic branches of

10 Memorandum dated Feb. 1944, Box 10, fd 4.

11 Memorandum dated 1942, Box 9, fd 5.

My History

the Church there, fully organized with all the auxiliary organiza-
tions. In addition, there was a small branch in the government-con-
structed model village of Greenbelt in nearby Maryland with
branches at Baltimore and elsewhere . 12

That period of my active life of about sixty-five years will stand
in significance next only to that of the epoch-making period of
pioneer days, and no other period of equal importance in the
history of Utah and Mormonism will follow it unless it be one of
degeneration. It was a period of prolonged persecution and social
war, followed by a short period of adjustment in which revolution-
ary changes took place in the social and religious fundamentals of
Mormon society. It was the end of a period of social and religious
isolation marked by the breaking down of impassable social,
religious, and business barriers that all but completely separated
Mormon and non-Mormon neighbors, however intimate their
daily contact. It was a transformation developed with almost
lightning speed; when the key was turned, the door was opened
and those barriers suddenly disappeared. The most hated political
opponents suddenly became ardent allies. The Salt Lake Tribune,
which had exhausted the invectives of the English language against
the leaders of the Church for nearly half a century, suddenly
became the political organ of a very large majority of the leaders
of the Mormon Church. Their longtime friend and defender, the
Salt Lake Herald, was no longer in their favor. 1 '

I foresaw that bewildering period as a schoolboy of twenty-five.
I foretold of the transformation of the Church and clearly por-
trayed not only the conditions that exist today but also prophesied
that the exact opposite condition would exist from that which then
existed. I believed then that the greatest enemy of the Saints would
be not religious persecution and intolerant hatred but their own
prosperity, wealth, and popularity. That prophecy was published

12 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6. See Jo Ann Barnett Shipps,
“The Mormons in Politics: The First Hundred Years,” Ph.D. diss., University of Colo-
rado, 1965.

18 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6. See J. Cecil Alter, Early
Utah Journalism: A Half-Century of Forensic Warfare Waged by the West ’s Most Militant
Press (Salt Lake City: Utah State Historical Society, 1938); O. N. Malmquist, The First
100 Years: A History of the Salt Lake Tribune, 1871-1971 (Salt Lake City: Utah State His-
torical Society, 1971).

Chapter 1

in the Juvenile Instructor, on October 1, 1883. It was the result of
an intensive study of history, and particularly that of the English
people. It developed because of an intense interest in my religion
and people. That article produced no disturbance on the troubled
water of the day because it came from an obscure school boy, and
was so apparently impossible that only fifty years, as I predicted,
would work the transformation. Nevertheless, my thinking has
been vindicated. 14

We now boast of the popularity and prosperity achieved under
President Grant’s administration, and we all greatly enjoy it. I have
said publicly and repeatedly that when I was in the East fifty and
more years ago (and even later) I found not a few of our people
evading the fact that they were “Mormons” for prudential reasons.
(Thank God I never did.) But in my recent seven years in high
official circles in Washington 1 found that beyond question, with
many high and lower officials and outside of political official life,
it was an advantage rather than disadvantage to be known as a
Mormon, because of the growing belief that our people were more
than usually temperate and moral in their habits, and frugal and
industrious in their lives— in other words, dependable. I intro-
duced many applicants for employment saying only that they were
good, clean-living Mormon boys or girls.

Trends in Mormonism and Mormon Society

I have always had an abiding, uninterrupted faith in the growth
and development of the Church. I have, as heretofore, believed
with an immovable and abiding faith in the growth, development,
and onward progress of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints and that no deviation therefrom (if there be any) will be
permanent. I am deeply grateful to the Lord for this faith and
testimony, for there have been some great changes in the Church
in my lifetime.

I might here offer some examples as to spiritual trends in the
lives of real Latter-day Saints. Up to about the time I went on my
last mission twelve years ago (1929), it was not the custom to write

14 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6. See James H. Moyle, “Will
We Progress?” Juvenile Instructor, 1 Oct. 1883, pp. 292-93.

15 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6. See below, chap. 3.

My History

or read addresses in the assemblies of the Saints. So far as I
remember and could observe, the theory or philosophy was that
speakers should rely upon the inspiration of the Lord, but should
nevertheless keep their minds as richly stored with information as
possible. Fifty years ago to read an ordinary address on an ordinary
occasion without some special reason would have shocked the
spiritual sensibilities of the Latter-day Saints. As a mission presi-
dent, I spoke for a few minutes at each general conference. Every
active member of the Church was a minuteman presumed to be
ready to do his best whenever called with only a real reliance on
the Spirit of the Lord to help him. Some may have kept an address
on hand, but I was not prudent enough to have a talk prepared for
the occasion when I might be called. If I did so I realized that it
might be ten years before I would be so called and that the address
would be out of date. I was too lazy to keep an up-to-date address
on ice. Yet I was no more lazy than the ordinary member. The fact
was that it was inconsistent with the general conception of spiritual
activity and duty. It meant reliance on self and not the Lord.

Again fifty years ago, and for a long time afterwards, it was a
rare and serious occasion when a doctor was called to serve the
sick, unless a surgeon was needed to amputate or t ry to save a limb,
or an injured member of the body. Such was the practice in my
father’s family and with practically all of our neighbors. The first
thought in my mind, and in that of my devoted mother and our
neighbors, was to follow the advice of James: “If there are any sick
among you, call the elders and let them anoint with oil, and the
prayer of faith shall heal the sick.”

When our neighborhood learned that the President of the
Church and the chief officers of the Church had regularly attended
physicians whose services were actively called into use even when
the sickness was not serious, it was something of a shock. In Salt
Lake City the custom spread, especially as wealth increased, until
now it is the rule rather than the exception. The money notwith-
standing, it was a fact that remarkable cures were frequently if not
commonly effected by the administrations of the elders and the
faith of the patient and his family, and with the aid of an unedu-
cated, pioneer mother’s remedies. In my very early life we neither

16 Memorandum dated 1941, Box 9, fd 4. See James 5:14.

Chapter 1

knew of nor had heard of dangerous disease germs, and social
diseases were intolerable and confined to the criminals and their
unfortunate associations.

As a child, if I were sick and felt seriously ill, my first anxiety
and request was that the elders of the Priesthood should be called
to administer to me. My faith was implicit that I would be healed,
and I was. Mother was a real pioneer, and she gave me tea, castor
oil, herbs, and other home remedies and applied herbal applica-
tions for bruises, strains, and other injuries. If the trouble was
obstinate, Daddy Bussel from across the street, an old English
herbalist, was called. I never had a doctor until about sixteen or
seventeen when it became necessary to amputate my left forefin-
ger. Mother had thirteen children, which in those days was a
common but crowning achievement among good Mormon
women, but now shocking to many. I was the oldest. No doctor
ever aided Mother at childbirth and such was the case with most
neighbors unless something very serious developed. Mother never
had any aid except from Sister Duncanson, an old Scotch neighbor
who brought into the world all the babies of the neighborhood.
There might have been an exception I do not recall, but it would
be only another less popular midwife. I do not think Mother
remained inactive ever for more than two weeks. She invariably
felt ready to resume her active duties in about a week. The midwife
had difficulty in keeping her in bed over a week if that long. She
was unusually strong and healthy. I am sure her life would have
been prolonged if she had not been so strenuous and prolific.

Again, down to the time that I commenced to practice law
in 1885, there were rare cases of court litigation. In harmony
with the scriptures, it was an actual violation of religious duty to
sue a brother in the courts of the land, except in cases involving
titles to land and corporations, of which there were very few
then. The Church held that corporation officers must follow the
law, and that only the courts could handle land titles effectively.
The Church maintained in my opinion the finest, least expensive,
most expeditious system of adjudicating controversies ever estab-
lished. It, however, was only fit for a community of Church
members who respected and upheld the decisions of such courts.
It worked effectively until non-members of the Church became
10 numerous and complications arose over financial transactions in

My History

which non-members were involved. The systems worked fairly
well down to the real estate boom of 1888 and 1889, and the
severe panic of 1893. The boom brought many Gentiles into Salt
Lake City and Ogden. Corporations were rapidly increasing and
the panic frequently required quick action by attachment and
otherwise to secure payment of indebtedness. If members did
not attach and get legal judgments and liens on debtors’ property
and income, then non-members only would be paid. For a good
illustration, my bishop, an exceptionally splendid man, was in the
mercantile business in Salt Lake City. All ward bishops presided
over a bishop’s court. But he came to me and said, “I have never
sued a brother. And it greatly disturbs me to do so, but I must
or go into bankruptcy and let the property of my debtors be
taken by the strangers who have recently come among us.” The
conclusion was inevitable, and suits at law rapidly became com-
mon. Soon, the work of the Church courts diminished greatly,
until the Mormon community differed little in law procedures
from other communities. 17

Reflecting a Greater Moyle Family

I want also my history to reflect in the highest degree its
primary object— a greater Moyle family than I found it. The great
moving cause of my life was an abiding interest in my family. I want
my experiences related so that they will be interesting and at the
same time show my concern for the advancement of my family and
my people. I always firmly believed in the greatness of my heritage,
and remained loyal to it. Recognizing in my grandfather and father
embryonic virtues and merits, indeed the basic elements of great-
ness, I was determined that those elements would emerge appar-
ent in me. 18

Notwithstanding my backwardness as a young boy due to really
dreadful bashfulness and an apparent lack of confidence in myself,
I had from my early teens an intense desire for my father to be

17 Memorandum dated 1941, Box 9, fd 4. See David Michael Emmons, “The
Boomers’ Frontier: Land Promotion and the Settlement of the Central Plains, 1854-
1893,” Ph.D. diss., University of Colorado, 1969; Leonard J. Arrington, Great Basin
Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900 (Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press, 1958), pp. 380-412.

18 Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 1.

Chaptkr 1

recognized in community activities as a leader. I felt that he was
superior to his neighbors intellectually and as a man, though he
was not educated and had not distinguished himself intellectually.
But few had. It was then a real struggle to obtain the needs of the
family. Father did as well as any mechanic did, and I do not
remember when he did not take important contracts. I distinctly
remember his building the Walker Brothers’ Store in 1869 when
I was eleven. About that time he built the Woodmansee store on
the other side of Main Street with a cut stone front that stood until
only recently. It was just below the southeast corner of Main and
First South. Then later he put up the Amussen Building which was
a very solid stone structure which will last as long as a two-story
building is practical. The Walker Building on the northwest corner
of Main and Second South is also still standing. All three were
considered to be outstanding structures in those days. But Father
was not made bishop or counselor which were the outstanding
honors then for ordinary men, or likewise city councillor. The
bishop then commonly served for life, and became the top man in
almost eveiy thing of local importance. 19

Father had the intellect, firmness, courage, and character to
have placed himself higher than he rose but for one commendable
weakness: modesty. He had been born and reared in humble
circumstances, with no one around him who elevated himself
beyond master mechanic, which he and his father were, or like his
grandfather Beer, who was an employer of small proportions of
mason mechanics as a building contractor. He did have govern-
ment contracts which indicates that he was not a small contractor.
It is true that Father’s grandfather, James Moyle, could write in a
very good hand, so he probably did much writing. But another
significant reason for Father’s failure to go higher was the prema-
ture ending of his life at age fifty-six. ’"

He was made a high councilor in the Salt Lake Stake in 1887

19 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. The term “mechanic” in
Moyle’s vocabulary pertained to its older meaning of “skilled manual laborer” as op-
posed to the more modern application which refers to “one who works with ma-
chines.”

20 Memorandum dated Feb. 1944, Box 10, fd 4. See Gene A. Sessions, ed., “Bi-
ographies and Reminiscences from the James Henry Moyle Collection,” unpublished
manuscript, 1974, CLA, secs. 4, 16.

My History

when it constituted the city and county of Salt Lake and about
one-third of the territory of Utah, but it was even more than that
in importance. Since I was elected county attorney in 1886, I took
some interest in the fact that my prominence might have added to
his dignity and stature, for he had greatly contributed to promot-
ing, as a father and benefactor, the ambition that made me the
first young Mormon to go east to study law with the formality of
a blessing to do so by the President of the Church. It is also a fact
that I was the only college-bred Mormon in the county who was
fitted for the place in 1886. LeGrand Young would not accept the
job. I was therefore holding down the place creditably in 1887
when Father’s appointment was made. And remember, that was a
far greater distinction than now. I take real pride believing that he
thought his distinction in that respect was at least partially due to
having a son who had become outstanding. But I know he merited
the place on his own account and probably would have been
selected in any event. Jl

My Youthful Ambitions

Next, the ambition developed for the family to be honored, the
name of Moyle recognized, and for me to become something. For
though I felt handicapped by my bashfulness, I always felt that it
was in me to get somewhere worthwhile ultimately, way beyond
that humble sphere in which all lived with whom I was intimately
surrounded.

It was probably when I was a boy of about fifteen that I read
Pollard’s Lost Cause, an account of the Civil War with a brief biogra-
phy of Abraham Lincoln. The possibilities that Lincoln demon-
strated were all I needed. The one sphere not occupied by the sons
of the most potent Mormons was that of lawyer. Our people did
not go to law with each other, in the courts of the land. Their rela-
tions were almost exclusively with each other. (I think I was more
than ten years old when the first non-Mormon lived in the Fif-
teenth Ward, which was a large ward, located from Second West to
the western limits of the city, and bounded on the north by South
Temple Street.) Lawyer and liar were synonymous terms. For a few
dollars a lawyer would espouse either side of a cause. Little was

21 Memorandum dated Feb. 1944, Box 10, fd 4. See below, chap. 4.

Chapter I

known about the fine ethics of attorneys-at-law. Many of them were
not educated for the law and knew or cared but little about the eth-
ics of the profession. They were rather the scrubs of the profession.
A real lawyer was the height of honor and responsibility, and stood
high among the best of citizens who knew him. 22

As my ambitions developed, I found the choice places in life,
like that of an appointment to Annapolis or West Point, were filled
by sons of the most prominent men. For example, Willard Young
was at West Point, his brother at Annapolis (sons of Brigham
Young) and Richard W., a grandson of Brigham Young, was there
or on the way to it. I had nothing but a humble background, and
was not exceptionally bright. I had not made in my classes in school
even a good showing due to my diffidence. Harry Haines was the
first teacher to observe any merits I had. And he took a real interest
in me, even inviting me to visit him in his room.

Haines had no family and lived in a single room, and there he
aided me to make my first address. It was some unusual school af-
fair or exhibition of what we were doing. All I remember about the
address was referring to my insufficiency and saying (due entirely
to Harry Haines), “I am not a Demosthenes or Cicero. ...” I might
have forgotten about that speech but for the fact that George M.
Cannon, a friendly schoolmate, as long as he lived continually re-
minded me of the “I-am-not-a-Demosthenes-or-Cicero” speech. In
fact he remembered more of it than I did or do now. 1 think
George, one of the brightest of our students and a fine young man,
was a little jealous of the attention given me by the teacher. He
made by far a better showing in school than I did. And there was
nothing against him. He was a nice person. 23

As I seriously contemplated doing what my ambition was im-
pelling me to do, I concluded that due to my backwardness and
lack of ability, I must go east to a good law school and there make a

22 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. The Lost Cause, by Edward Al-
bert Pollard (1828-72), was a romantic history of the Confederate effort in the Civil
War. Pollard was a Virginia lawyer who staunchly supported the South but bitterly op-
posed the policies of Jefferson Davis. He wrote several other books on the war and
the South, all full of the folklore and idealism of mid-nineteenth-century literature.

23 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. Demosthenes and Cicero are
the Greek and Roman epitomes of great orators, such as Daniel Webster in the Ameri-
can forensic pantheon.

good record which would give me the needed standing and start in
life. 1 did not lack confidence in myself that I would make good
with such a start. I was more than willing to work to the limit, and
believed further that it was an absolute necessity. I have never
changed my mind as to that subject. It cannot be too often re-
peated that work is the greatest of all genius, although I must admit
that I did not know that then.

When very young and diffident and for some considerable
time, I was ashamed or too modest to let even my father or mother
or most intimate companion know what was my unalterable pur-
pose to do. When I did tell anyone, it was with the most solemn
promise that he or she would tell no one. I believed I would be sub-
jected to ridicule not only because of the prejudice of everyone I
knew against a young Mormon going east to study law but because
I believed I would be regarded by all as ridiculous and vain for
thinking of such a thing. I have written elsewhere of the opposition
to my going east of neighbors, bishop, stake president, and even of
the President of the Church in 1882. Now (in 1945) this seems in-
conceivable, and has for a long time. I am proud now of my pio-
neering in that problem. And it was real pioneering then for an ac-
tive Latter-day Saint. Though there were rare cases of young Mor-
mons going east to study law, they were not active Church workers
as I was and did not meet the issue and solve it as I did. I know of
three only who preceded me. One left the Church while away from
it, one left the territory and cast his lot in the Northwest among
strangers and had nothing further to do with the Church, and the
other became a partner of one of the most bitter of all anti-Mor-
mons, and was not active in the Church, though he retained his
membership and became more active in later life when completely
separated from his old partner. I do not suggest that the partner
dominated him, because he was very high-minded and honorable,
but how he tolerated the association can only be accounted for in
that the firm acted occasionally as attorneys for Brigham Young
and the Church. The great irony is that the three I refer to here
were the sons of very prominent Church leaders— Presidents
Brigham Young and John Taylor, and President Joseph Young of
the Seventies.' 1

24 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. Reference is to Allales Young,

Chapter 1

My Father’s Limited Sphere

I had, as previously stated, smarted as a little boy under the
humiliation that Father had never been selected for bishop or
bishop’s counselor or city councillor— places that seemed to be
within the reach of our ward members. Anything higher than
that was not contemplated in my tender, early days. All our near
neighbors were humble men; we did not live in the realm of the
higher ups. We were on the outskirts of the city with no neighbors
on the immediate south, and only one street west of us which
ended at Second South. Had he lived a normal lifespan, as he
easily might have, and had he not been tied down with about all
he could do in providing for his two families of six children in
each with two mothers, he might have gone farther up, though
I am unable to point in what direction. In the Eighteenth Ward
into which he moved in 1887, there was much less opportunity
for a culturally uneducated and uncultivated mind that had lived
and moved in the atmosphere so nearly composed of working
people for fifty-six years.

It is true that his high council surroundings were very differ-
ent. The chief work of the high council of those days, next in impor-
tance to the selection of stake and ward officers and instructions to
them, was the trial of controversies between members of the
Church. While the teachers’ and bishops’ trials disposed of many
cases, it was in the high council where the important cases went
either by original action or appeal from the bishop’s court. An ap-
peal from the high council decision could go to the First Presi-
dency on the record made in the high council, but that, like appeals
to the Supreme Court, was very rare. Hence, Father was often out
at those trials all night in order to save another night at it, and he
would come home as late as two or three in the morning. 2 ”

The Eighteenth Ward was a classy community compared

Bruce Taylor, and LeGrand Young.

25 Memorandum dated Feb. 1944, Box 10, fd 4. James Moyle was called to the
Salt Lake Stake High Council in 1887 shortly after he moved into the Eighteenth
Ward and served thereon until his death on 8 December 1890. See his short biogra-
phy in Andrew Jenson, Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia, 4 vols. (1901; reprint
ed., Salt Lake City: Western Epics, 1971), L;776-78. See also D&C 102; Joseph Smith,
Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. by B. H. Roberts, 7 vols.
(Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1904), 2:28-31.

My History

with the Fifteenth where we had always lived. Bishop Orson F.
Whitney, a writer, poet, historian, and member of a prominent
Church family, led the array of notables who lived within a
stone’s throw of Brigham’s grave. Father’s home was on what
theretofore had been a part of the President’s personal orchard
and gardens adjoining his chief residences. The locality was the
homes of the Youngs, Kimballs, Wellses, the President of the
Church, the Richardses, Clawsons, Claytons, Spencers, Colonel
Webber (Superintendent of ZCMI), the Pratts, Caines, Jenning-
ses, and Church offices and the center of culture and wealth in
ihe city. The result was that Father again became a comparative
commoner. Nevertheless, it was not until after he had moved
into this neighborhood in May of 1887 that he was ordained a
high priest and made a high councilor. (He had been previously
in the presidency of a quorum of seventies.) He had reached
his zenith of official distinction. Even so, he might have become
a city councillor had he remained in the Fifteenth Ward. In
those days the best men available were elected, so to be a mem-
ber of the city council was to be numbered among the highly
regarded members of the community.

At all events, that was certainly gravitating upward from be-
ing only a leading ward teacher who was called on to lead in
such things as building a nice new meeting house, or district
school trustee. Father was ward school trustee. Our sphere in
the Fifteenth Ward had been that of lowlanders near the out-
skirts of the city. It was from that status that the family has
emerged and become not only well-known through the state,
but I know highly regarded as one of the prominent families of
Utah, and how anxious 1 am for them at least to hold their own
as 1 pray and believe they will. That was the first and the greatest
ambition of my life.'"

Loyalty and Conflict in the Church

For more than seventy years I would have given my life for the
Church, if 1 know myself, notwithstanding the fact that 1 was not
a Church favorite but most of the lime quite the opposite. 1 had
no potential leader in the Church at any time to promote my

26 Memorandum dated Feb. 1944, Box 10, fd 4.

Chapter 1

interests, or one especially interested in my welfare. Outside of my
humble father I had no acquaintance to even encourage me in the
career I planned, when about fourteen, and which I followed
throughout my life. On the contrary, those with whom I was most
intimately associated thought it was a mistake and folly for me to
attempt to be a lawyer. So this morning, very early, I was meditat-
ing upon my past life, and the question forced itself upon my mind
most impressively: Why have I been a loyal Mormon so long and
so consistently? Why have I been willing and responsive to every
call the Church has ever made on me to serve its interests without
any promise of earthly reward and whatever the sacrifice or service
to be rendered? The Church is noted for making calls on those
who willingly respond, and 1 was no exception to the rule. Why
have I paid to the Church one-tenth of my personal earning and
the net income from all other sources of every nature and kind all
of my life? 27

While greatly absorbed in making a living from necessity in
my profession, my heart was always in religion and public life.
Because I was so absorbed in making a living and keeping in
close touch with politics, the leadership of the Church turned a
cold shoulder to me and I was not welcomed into the inner circles
of higher authority. But I was always a propagandist of so-called
Mormonism, even to the extent of depriving myself of the things
like tea, coffee, wine, which I naturally liked. I also attended
Church when I did not feel like it but quite to the contrary,
because I felt it a duty and wanted to be a consistent exemplar
of my religion and to lead my children to follow in my footsteps.
All of this I did in the devoutly sincere belief that great eternal
blessings would flow into me, including health, progress, and
happiness in this life. I want to emphasize that my devotion to
religion and politics cost me much in labor, money, and depri-
vation of the passing pleasures which seemed to call for indul-
gences I could not afford if I wanted to preserve my religion and
to maintain my good name. 28

As I ponder the intellectual, spiritual, and material (or earthly
and selfish) conflicts that have been the tone of my life, I am

27 Memorandum dated Feb.-Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6.

28 Memorandum dated Dec. 1934, Box 9, fd 3.

impressed as never before with the clear fact that when 1 have
devoted myself to intellectual effort, there has followed intellectual
development, corresponding with the extent and intensity of the
effort. The same occurred spiritually when in spiritual activities.
When I devoted myself to making money, promoting my profes-
sional career and political ambition, I grew and developed in those
directions according to the effort made in each. There were
periods in each in which the development was clearly manifest. My
knowledge and abilities in each direction was very evident. When
my mind and time were engrossed in something more than any-
thing else it influenced my thought and obscured to a significant
degree all else.

That was true in detail when I was on my first mission as a boy.
At the conclusion of that mission and notwithstanding my life’s
passion for an education and to become a lawyer and a force for
good at home, I would have accepted a call from the Church to go
on a ten-year mission to any heathen land, however backward it
might be, even with the prospect of blighting my passion for
education and intellectual development and the absorbing ambi-
tion of my life to get somewhere and be somebody in the sphere
of usefulness and honor. The same thing occurred when at the
University of Michigan, where a new world of thought absorbed
my soul, and an intellectual growth took place of which f was
unconscious until I came home and came into contact with my old
associates and former surroundings. Then I discovered that my
outlook and views had been broadened and changed materially,
though the fundamentals had remained the same. My mind had
been broadened, my views and attitudes so enlarged that I saw the
same things in a different light, and I literally painted realities in
somewhat different colors. 25 '

Again, when I became absorbed with my profession and
politics and was at war politically with the great majority of the
leading Church authorities, my religious friends thought that I
would leave the Church and were greatly concerned about it.
There I was, absorbed with the earthly and selfish things of life,
but always standing stoutly for the things I believed to be vital and
worth fighting to uphold. But I was not making progress, to say

29 Memorandum dated Mar. 1945, Box 12, fd 2. See below, chap. 3.

Chapter 1

the least, spiritually or religiously, because I was moved to the
depths and absorbed in real combat with the men who were my
spiritual standard-bearers in the Church for which I had always
been ready to make any sacrifice, and still was. But again, there
was a change in my attitude toward them and in my views. I could
see their failings in a brighter light and much easier than before. 30

There was a change in my outlook and views which I had to
reconcile and harmonize. This was not an easy task, for I believed
they had lowered their standards of spiritual guidance, even
though I realized that they were not acting in a spiritual capacity
but a purely political one. They themselves in the 1890s had
declared that the political was separated from the spiritual, and
that all members of the Church were not to be molested in politics
by their ecclesiastical leaders in exercising their political privileges
and duties as citizens. Yet, for my politics 1 was dropped from all
official religious activity for nearly ten years around the turn of the
century, but I never deviated from the religious affairs first at home
and then in renewed missionary service, wherein, according to that
activity and intensity of devotion to religious service, I enjoyed
spiritual growth and religious happiness I could not have realized
when in conflict with religious leaders. At the conclusion of my
mission presidency in the early 1930s, both my wife and 1 were
deeply impressed with the happiness that unselfish work had
brought into our lives. No period in our married life had compared
with it in real joy. That was reaffirmed in our seven years in
Washington that followed and also will never be forgotten. Making
money and losing some of it, and making more and keeping it,
and the pleasure of spending and social gaiety, do not compare
with the deeper and more lasting joy that comes to one for
devotion and service unselfishly rendered in the interest of others,
especially when done in the belief that it pertains not only to the
fleeting days on earth but eternity. Again, nothing else compares
with it, for the joy therefrom is completely unique. My conclusion
is that come what may, there is only one way to keep in time and
touch with the infinite, and that is by cultivating and following the
divine light that is ever present and evident to all who live unsel-
fishly and who daily pray for it and keep in touch with that which

30 Memorandum dated Mar. 1945, Box 12, fd 2. See below, chaps. 4-5.

My History

develops it. That Savior of all mankind pointed the way and gave
the keys to the happiness and the way to life eternal when he left
his apostles and ascended to heaven, and said: “Go ye into all the
world and preach the gospel to every creature and he that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be
damned.” So the Lord’s Supper is very important. Without partak-
ing of the sacrament, the symbol of all righteousness, when avail-
able, with pure intent and faith in Christ, the everlasting fellowship
of the Holy Ghost and the spirit of Divinity will be lost. No matter
how much good you may have done, virtue exhibited in your life,
or the spiritual manifestations you may have witnessed, and faith
you may once have had, you will fall away from the Church .’ 1

Conservatism and the Church

Yet with all of this I cannot very well refrain from writing of
our Church leaders and their conservatism. It is a strange but
explainable phenomenon. In the first place they have always had
conservative tendencies. Whenever an institution becomes an
established, recognized, and permanent power, it becomes easy to
be in sympathy with other institutional powers, and that is the
seed-bed of conservatism. It is much like gravity. Kindred souls
harmonize. Think, for example, of the depths to which the Church
sank in supporting Russian autocracy. ’' Its extremes justified the
revolution against it, for its virtues could not obliterate its atroci-
ties from the souls of men. That which happened to the once noble
Catholic Church in the Middle Ages was due to similar elements
of reaction and love of power. But the policy of supporting what
is rather than what should be has been one of the most fatal errors
of mankind. For long-established institutions naturally become
static unless the right prevails over the wrong, and the wrong had
always prevailed where stagnation set in, because man either
progresses or retrogresses. There is no such a thing in the plan of
divinity as standing still. Man either goes forward or backward.

The active forces in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints today are operating on very different lines than in the days
of my youth, though they are fundamentally the same. In other

31 Memorandum dated Mar. 1945, Box 12, fd 2.

32 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 11, fd 4.

Chapter 1

words, the Church today is perfecting the organizational details of
the main fundamentals of pioneer days. Then it was a struggle for
the extension of comforts, and so the concomitant emphasis in the
Church is upon the perfection of the machinery of operation in
the organization. It is rapidly becoming multitudinous in its de-
tailed operations. The meetings of the priesthood are now multi-
plied out of sight of what they were when I was a boy, and I think
more than doubled since I became a high councilman in 1904. For
example, the presidency of the high priests’ quorum consisted
largely of presiding at a monthly meeting. Now it is a complicated
mechanism, and nearly a full-time job.

Today, the Church organization, with its new committees,
keeps a detailed record of every man— what he is, what he does,
and what can be expected of him in minute detail. I think it
compares favorably with the most perfectly organized industry,
bank, manufactory, transportation, or other business corpora-
tion. The Presiding Bishop, the President of the Church, the
president of a stake, or the bishop of a ward has convenient
reports of the weekly religious activities of every male member
of the Church. That kind of information was carried only in the
minds of men in a very general way when I became active in
Church government. But the point I should like to make is that
the power of wealth and its influence on men has spilled over
into Church administration. I have in mind particularly the in-
fluence of wealth on the men who determine the policy of the
great Church of Utah, and how much it has to do with the politics
of the state. The policy-making for the Church is determined by
the First Presidency, in consultation with the Quorum of the
Twelve. When they agree on fundamentals, the Presidency carries
out the policy much as a president and manager of a great
corporation does with the executive committee (the Twelve) in
the background. The President, of course, exercises a veto power.
His conclusion is the final word. To determine from without what
that word will be is a very difficult proposition. For in the Church,
the major issues are determined only after prayer and supplica-
tion for divine guidance. No one on the outside can determine
how far the latter is controlling, and even the President himself
may be in doubt as to just where the lines should be drawn and
what the decision should be.

My History

One thing can be noted with certainty, and that is that when
a decision is made on matters which are to be approved by the
Priesthood generally and Church members, it will stand effec-
tively, and there are rare cases where it is revised or abandoned.
But in the details not so acted upon, mistakes are made more or
less like those of all mortal activities. So that system works out
admirably in the end. As to politics, which have always weighed
heavily on my mind, there are striking variations. My views have
been in serious conflict with those of the First Presidency as a
rule on what I call the major issues, but which I admit may not
be such. 1 may have in my mind a narrower horizon than they
have. All I want to do is to present my views and let them stand
on their merits so that each person can enjoy the freedom of
conviction. In rendering my conclusions, I try to take into con-
sideration the environment in which I and they move. In that
respect, I attach much importance to the environment of wealth
with which the members of the First Presidency are now sur-
rounded. 1 thoroughly believe the human environment, more
than the spiritual, has much to do with important decisions, as
do also the background of the individuals, and their charac-
teristics, personal and otherwise. For example, the President of
the Church has long been a director of the Union Pacific Railroad
and enjoys the privileges and advantages of that office such as
an occasional private car, travel privileges, director’s compensa-
tion, etc. His point of view is therefore naturally altered by that
human experience. 3 ’

Church Interference in Politics

From the time of the first Democratic state convention in the
Salt Lake Theater, in which I took a prominent part, until even
long after I was made a high councilman at the creation of the
Ensign Stake, I was viewed with serious doubt because of my
outspoken fight against the leadership of the Church in politics,
and notably against the activities of Apostles Francis Lyman and
John Henry Smith who personally worked with Mormon Demo-
crats to become Republicans while visiting conferences, attending
priesthood meetings, and in every other way possible. I also spoke

33 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 1 1 , fd 4.

out against the quiet and indirect influence in the same direction
of the President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, which unmistak-
ably indicated his wishes. His will and wishes were all some needed
to know to cause them to change their affiliations, in anything
whatever, except religious principles. Yet, for Utah to obtain
statehood was always the great political goal which the Republican
Party nationally opposed. Its national platforms always carried a
declaration against slavery and polygamy, the latter of which
everybody recognized as a declaration against Mormonism. The
orthodox clergy quite generally demanded it, and all recognized
and believed Mormonism and polygamy to be synonymous, and
that polygamy was the chief cornerstone and foundation of Mor-
monism.

Republican carpetbag territorial officials thought they had
the duty of reforming the Mormons religiously as well as politi-
cally. That was the prevailing attitude of Republican official domi-
nation at the time when Utah was making its many efforts to
obtain statehood and was continually denied by Republican ad-
ministrations and congresses. There were always distinguished
Democrats from the South who, while disclaiming in Congress
equally with Republicans any sympathy for polygamy, proclaimed
their democratic belief and devotion to the right of even the
Mormons to govern themselves. State sovereignty is the funda-
mental and chief cornerstone of Democratic principles, and Utah
should ever keep green the memory of the names of those south-
ern Senators and Congressmen, and of Jeremiah Black of Penn-
sylvania, and finally of Grover Cleveland who signed Utah’s ena-
bling act.

But a deal was evidently made by President Joseph F. Smith,
Bishop Hiram Clawson, and maybe some others, to make Utah
Republican, notwithstanding the fact that the first administration
having an opportunity and the sympathy to give Utah freedom
from carpetbag rule was Democratic. In justification for President
Smith’s action (he was a counselor at the time to the President of
the Church), it was claimed with some justification that Republican
help was needed to insure the passage of the bill. The details as to
that I leave to the historian. It is true, however, that by all the rules
governing my life, the Democrats and not the Republicans (al-

My History

though some Republicans voted for the measure) were entitled to
the credit."

I cannot get away from the foregoing history, however much
I might like to make a better showing for our religious leaders. 1
do believe more now than I did in the sincerity and purity of their
purpose. And I am sure of their loyalty to their people. I am also
sure, however, that they, very humanly, and after becoming avowed
Republicans, became narrow and objectionable partisans, such as
Latter-day Saints in present times would resent at the polls if not
elsewhere. As to my own status with the Church leaders, they
gradually moderated and softened, so that before the death of
President Joseph F. Smith, whom I considered the most efficient
enemy of the Democratic Party, he frankly did me the justice of
saying that I was a manly opponent who fought in the open and
never struck below the belt. He said this both to Heber J. Grant
and to General Richard W. Young. 1,

The similar problem with which I am wrestling currently is
what has led the President of the Church to create an atmosphere
around him in his headquarters and among those near him and
who look to him for leadership in all things, of the most intense
opposition to the President of the United States. I believe that the
man who has been elected President of the Nation four times
cannot deserve the downright hatred of the leadership of the
Church. Still, that atmosphere encourages the belief that the man
thus trusted and respected is the greatest enemy the nation has
had within its boundaries, that he is leading the nation into
Communism, and to the destruction of our sacred Constitution
and what has come to be known as the American way of life. I do
not know that I have overdrawn the picture. I would not do it
knowingly. Pending the election, the Presiding Patriarch of the
Church said to his confidential friend, my son-in-law, that he did
not see how a Latter-day Saint could consistently vote to support

34 Memorandum dated Dec. 1934, Box 9, fd 3. See Gustive O. Larson, The
‘'Americanization” of Utah for Statehood (San Marino, CA: Huntington Library, 1971),
pp. 283-304. See also the bitter but interesting primaiy account of this “deal” in Frank
J. Cannon and Harvey J. O’Higgins, Under the Prophet in Utah (Boston: C. M. Clarke,
1911). The definitive work on the subject is Edward Leo Lyman, Political Deliverance:
The Mormon Quest for Utah Statehood (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986).

35 Memorandum dated Dec. 1934, Box 9, fd 3.

Chapter 1

President Roosevelt, putting the issue on religious grounds. He is
a former professor of speech at the University of Utah, a student
and a thinker, but for years living in the atmosphere to which I
refer. President Grant himself is reliably represented as saying that
he turns the radio off when the President speaks over it even on
questions of importance, and that his blood pressure goes up
dangerously when one whom he respects speaks to him in a
pronounced way about the virtues of the President. I am his
life-long friend, and heretofore felt free to express myself on
partisan politics to him, but for about two or more years refrained
from doing so for fear that it would be injurious to his health. Mrs.
Richard W. Young, a Roosevelt enthusiast, while his guest on an
automobile ride, openly opposed his views concerning President
Roosevelt, and President Grant’s family reported that the conver-
sation was highly injurious to the feeble Brother Grant.’'

If I am mistaken and Presidents Grant and Clark are justified,
then the greater the glory for them and the greater the condem-
nation for me. My purpose is righteous. I want nothing written or
done that would suggest anything else. I attach real importance to
this subject, and I want to verify my facts and conclusions as far as
I can do so. May God help me to avoid error and especially
injustice. I am conscious of dealing with a delicate subject and want
to avoid arousing doubts about the divinity of the work the men I
differ with politically are doing. They are good and faithful men
devoted to the cause of truth and justice, but after all, fallible men
are all the Lord has on earth to use. Those thus used are so much
like other men that it is hard to determine whether they are
inspired of God on a particular issue or by their own mortal, fallible
views. We are all more or less what our associations and interests
make us. We can cultivate unconsciously error or truth, one as
easily as the other. I want to be right, but it is often easy to mistake
error for truth. Yet I am determined that truth shall be my guide,
and that I will be true to the truth come what may. Indeed, my
ambition and hope for the truth grows with my later years, but I
have always wanted to be the enemy of error. I have sought

36 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 11, fd 4. See Frank H. Jonas, “Utah:

The Different State,” in Frank H. Jonas, ed., Politics in the American West (Salt Lake
City: University of Utah Press, 1969), pp. 332-33.

My History

strongly for what I conceived to be the right, and now as an
octogenarian more than ever, I am deeply impressed with the
thought that exposure of error in this case will be healthy.

I am continually amazed and shocked that the leadership of
the Church today interferes in politics with such a one-sided,
partisan view. My chagrin increases as I contemplate the declara-
tion of the Church leaders in 1895, when they were praying for
statehood, that pledged complete noninterference in politics. I am
impressed, possibly unduly, with the inconsistency of the position
of the Brethren regarding politics, because of the probability that
the future will not justify the same. On the contrary, if the future
does justify them, which seems now unlikely, what a striking
evidence it will be of their divine guidance, and my lack of that
wisdom for which I have fervently prayed. In any case, I have no
doubt about the Church going forward regardless of the mistakes
of their leaders in matters such as politics which they have so
specifically and publicly declared were out of their sphere, particu-
larly so far as relates to ecclesiastical influence being used to lead
the people in matters concerning how they should vote in purely
political affairs. I repeat, they have specifically declared that eccle-
siastical influence would not be used in politics, but that the voter
should be free from Church influence in determining how and for
whom he would vote. That, of course, did not preclude the official
Church news organ from keeping its readers informed on the
issues of an election, and the dangers it involved. What I denounce
and believe to be an error is that in presenting those dangers to
public welfare, only one side is given. The policy-making of the
paper is in the hands of strong conservatives who had no commen-
dation or even tolerance for the New Deal reforms of the 1930s.
Ironically enough, those conservatives now (1944) support the
New Deal through their support of the Republican candidates,
who not only approve of those reforms but propose to widen their
sphere significantly. So the News, in effect, opposes the greater
conservatism of FDR whose leadership the Church authorities
seem to believe is a real menace to the nation. 3 '

37 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 1 1, fd 3. This is an interesting twist on
Roosevelt with which historians may or may not agree. For some strong but critical
agreement (on Roosevelt’s conservatism), see particularly Barton J. Bernstein, “The

Chapter 1

When the editorials in the Deseret News opened a campaign in
1944 to undermine the sentiment in favor of FDR, it was apparent
that they were scraping the bottom of the can to find the littlest
excuse for sniping at the President. Just how far did it speak or
encourage loyalty to the head of the nation who was performing
magnificently in battling the most important threat civilization
itself ever confronted? At the same time it was giving direct aid
and encouragement to the Republican candidate for the Presi-
dency, youthful and inexperienced in every sphere which would
qualify him for action in the leadership of war and international
peace. It was a real case of wanting to send a boy to mill in a storm
never before equalled or even thought of, and at a time when the
inexperienced Republican was basing his campaign chiefly on the
grounds that he could do the job more efficiently than President
Roosevelt whose entire life had been devoted to qualifying himself
for that work he was doing so well. What a pitiful sight it presents
for men claiming to be guided by divine light in a matter of such
importance and in which they know so many look to the Deseret
News for the most accurate and non-partisan information. It is even
worse to contemplate the fact that after the election, the only word
of Christian expression regarding the decisive decision of the
people that the News could come up with was that loyalty to
government demands that we must all support the decision that
has been made. Is there anything less that it could have said?' 8

My radio address of November 4, 1944, was approved as no
other I ever delivered, by prominent life-long Republicans and
Democrats, Mormons and non-Mormons. The one thing that
brought the most favorable comment was the courage it required
to speak of the Deseret News as I did. It was generally believed (as

New Deal: The Conservative Achievements of Liberal Reform,” in Barton J. Bern-
stein, ed.. Towards a New Past: Dissenting Essays in American History (New York, 1968);
Paul K. Conkin, The New Deal (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1967). Moyle con-
sistently refused to deny positively the correctness of the position of the Mormon lead-
ers with regard to interference in politics, but he was apparently convinced within
himself that they had allowed their personal desires to override their sense of respon-
sibility as ecclesiastes. See also Circular Letter of the First Presidency, CR 1-1, 4-6 Apr.
1896, CLA.

88 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 1 1, fd 3. See News editorials through the
fall of 1944. See especially Deseret News, 8 Nov. 1944.

My History

the fact was) that I also included conspicuously Church leaders
among those who had shocked my sensibilities by charging the
President of the United States with being an enemy of the nation,
a Communist leading the nation into Communism. If such should
ultimately be found to be true, I want to emphasize the fact that
only the Invisible One could have made the fact known to fallible
man, and the Church should profit therefrom, because if that was
the source of their knowledge, it was not clear at all to me. It should
be known to future generations (as it is now to all) that the Church
leadership as never before has the counsel of distinguished and
highly respected functionaries in both parties, real national leaders
in politics on both sides, and leaders in banking, finance, industry,
ecclesiastics, and business generally, and many well-informed
farmers and intellectuals. It has ever been that wealthy and the
more favored, established classes have been the chief supporters
of reaction. All churches, as soon as they become strongly estab-
lished and recognized, become conservative and opponents of
change, and ever the inevitable progress of time. So it is that the
Church leadership, which I admire and support generally in its
sphere out of politics, bitterly and immovably opposes the advanced
policies of President Roosevelt. But it is the great middle class that
furnishes the leadership that actually moves and dominates a free
people, and the masses control the great issues. Wealth and the
highly intellectual may lead at times, but the masses ultimately
determine the course of the nation. '* 1

Greatness and Error in Men

I would not have my posterity think that I am the worshipper
of a man. I have often said that he who pins his faith to any man’s
coattails will lose his salvation. I have read that truth in the mistakes
I have noted in the life of the greatest of all of God’s prophets,
Joseph Smith. I have personally seen much of the same in the lives
of Joseph Smith’s greatest successor, Brigham Young, and each of
his successors, all of whom are human beings with all the weak-
nesses of human beings and with all the exhibitions of those
human failings as you can find in the greatest of the ancient
prophets and leaders of God’s work on earth, such as in David and

39 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 11, fd 3.

Chapter 1

Solomon, and in the meridian of time in Peter, the rock upon
which the great Catholic Church builds its faith, who denied in the
hour of trial that he even knew his Lord and Savior. I speak of the
apparently greatest Christian Church on earth, which has done so
much good, and has attained real greatness in the earth, and yet
one can easily find the greatest of all human weakness in some of
its popes, and one marvels at the possibilities of their atrocious
accomplishment in the name of the Divine Son. One may note the
same when coming down to the Reformation and its marvelous
achievements under the leadership of such men as Luther and
Calvin. The latter, as I remember, stood by in Geneva like St. Paul
and rejoiced in the burning to death of a martyr to the cause of
truth. I marvel at the burning of Savonarola on the public plaza of
Florence, Italy." 1 That name comes to me forcibly and somewhat
proudly because of the declaration of Frank B. Stevens in the Salt
Lake Theater before a large political gathering that I was a modern
Savonarola. I immodestly refer to that not because 1 think I merit
that applause, for I know I do not at all, but because it has been
my life’s ambition to be at least in a small way what he was in a
great way to those whom he loved and for whose welfare he was
willing to suffer even a most horrid and torturous death. I pledged
my life when at school to stay with my people in their fight under
ecclesiastical leadership as long as that was by that leadership
deemed wise, but when that same leadership ended the fight and
division on national political lines followed, as I was sure it would,
then I would have to be a free lance. I therefore declared in the
meeting that dissolved our Peoples Party my allegiance to the
Democratic Party to which I had been patriotically devoted from
my earliest remembrance of things political. When about sixteen
1 bad attended my first political primary. When in school in
Michigan 1 attended my first State Democratic Convention at
Detroit and my first National Democratic Convention in Chicago
(which nominated Cleveland) in 1884, which was eight years
before we had a Democratic Party in Utah, except for the “sage-

40 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 11, fd 3. Girolamo Savonarola (1452-98)
was a Dominican priest and ascetic who was hung from a cross and burned in
Florence for “heresy.” In actuality, he had gained the disfavor of the Catholic hierar-
chy with his rigorous denunciations of corruption and malfeasance in high places.

My History

brushes” in 1886 who only figured to speak of Democratic princi-
ples rather than as members or for the accomplishment of Demo-
cratic victory. I was with them in principle, though in the election
of 1886 I was running for county attorney on the Peoples Party
Ticket to which I was also devoted in its fight against the anti-
Mormon Liberal Party. 41

The Pattern of Church Leadership

I am further impressed with the thought that President Grant
may be, if he lives much longer, the last of the old-time, pioneer
testimony-bearing presidents of the Church. It is that which makes
him outstanding more than anything else in my mind. Neither of
his counselors follow his example in testifying with emphasis and
directness that God lives and that Jesus is the Christ and that
Joseph Smith is the great prophet of this dispensation. It is true,
however, that they say the same thing in less direct terms. In other
words, they soften it, make it more indirect and inferential. It is
also true, nevertheless, that George Albert Smith, who is next in
line but in very delicate health, is largely of the old type, and that
George F. Richards, following him, is the same, both in health, age,
and expression. Their age and health gives little evidence of a
prolonged and impressive administration. The next in line is a man
whom most members think will distinguish himself as the presi-
dent, David O. McKay. But he, too, is not in the best of health, and
is not so much younger, being in his seventies. But he is so highly
spiritual, intellectual, educated, naturally refined and appealing as
a religious leader that many think that he, in the Providence of the
Lord, will be the man who will make the next record of importance
in the natural course of human events. Such is my own view,
because Joseph Fielding Smith precedes the I wo intellectuals and
educated thinkers, Stephen L. Richards and Joseph F. Merrill.
Also, he is in good health while the two are not in the best of health.
It is therefore apparent that there is no prospect of another
thirty-year administration of one man. Men are selected now when

41 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 1 1, fd 3. Jonas, “The Different State,” p.
328, places the founding of Sagebrush Democracy at 1888. See additionally Charles
C. Richards, The Organization and Growth of the Democratic Party in Utah, 1847-1896
(Salt Lake City: Sagebrush Democratic Club, 1942).

Chapter 1

they have demonstrated over the years their fitness for the office
of an apostle and not so much because of their parentage, as was
the case with both Heber J. Grant and Joseph Fielding Smith.

I must not fail to say what I had in mind saying earlier, that
George A. Smith is a most lovable, spiritual-minded man of broad
travel and experience that adds to his fitness for the place, and the
Lord could easily prolong his life and enable him to make an
outstanding record. I would think it would be spiritual rather than
political and material, and though he is Republican, I think he is
a great man. He was never naturally fitted for great leadership, but
his fine sense of right, his natural spirituality and deep sympathy,
fine ideals and faith would make him more susceptible to spiritual
promptings than a man of greater education and dominating
intellectuality. I believe he would make, as long as his health would
permit activity, as splendid a president as there ever was, because
inspiration would be the dominating factor.

I also believe that the Church needs age and experience, with
great faith, and strong human sympathies and spirituality. The
practical has had its right-of-way for a long time, but with all the
tendencies of President Grant for business and money matters,
and his natural tastes in that direction and his admiration for men
successful in business, there has always been a substantial degree
of generosity in his private and public career. Note, for example,
his large gifts of books. Also, his contribution, though small, to the
University of Utah was a pioneer one in that direction, and not
inconsistent with his property holdings or income. It was charac-
teristic of him. IJ

I am convinced that President Clark is the real cause of the
political errors of the First Presidency. I would like to see a
comparative study of both Anthony W. Ivins andj. Reuben Clark,
showing how each influenced the President of the Church and his
policies. I believe that out of that study would come a most
interesting and instructive chapter, and that good would come
from it as it might exhibit some of President Clark’s shortcomings
on the political side, which I definitely oppose. Nevertheless, I

42 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 11, fd 3. Grant habitually gave away
books with which he was impressed, sometimes sending out hundreds of copies of a
single book. Over the years Moyle had been a recipient of many of these.

My History

hope I live long enough to see my error if it be such, and that I am
able to make ample apology, and to take advantage of the oppor-
tunity to understand how the Lord works through such men. If it
is true, as my son Henry asserts, that President Clark is no more
partisan than President McKay, which I cannot now think, then
the fact of my error is made clear. And what it all means, and what
the result from it all will be, I cannot say/ !

Their minor mistakes (as I see them) will probably be soon
forgotten, just as I witnessed with the criticisms of Brigham Young,
which loomed large and were numerous in the last days of Presi-
dent Young, but were soon forgotten and are now never men-
tioned. I do not know but that there was some fire where there
was so much smoke; indeed, I cannot help but think there was
considerable fire, because he did make many mistakes, as every big
as well as little man does.

Divine Guidance in Church Affairs

There is nothing I commend more than efforts of the Brethren
to keep the Saints free from debt and dependence, and to preserve
their individual independence, initiative, thrift, self-respect, useful
endeavor, and determination to be self-supporting, productive
members of society, and to avoid cultivating a willingness to have
others provide for them when they are able to provide for them-
selves. 1 appreciate the cultivation of frugality, industry, honest
labor, and thrift especially. Without those virtues the community
and the nation will degenerate and fail. Idleness is truly the devil’s
workshop. At sixty-five I was in my prime. For me to have given up
life’s work would have been next to criminal. I was then well-fitted
for the best work of my life. At seventy I was president of a mission
of 165 missionaries in the busiest center of population in America,
including the states of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Con-
necticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maryland, Delaware, and
the District of Columbia. At seventy-five I was invited to take
charge of the collection of revenue from the tariff, and ran the

43 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 11, fd 3. In this passage (in context)
Moyle was asking Evans to write such a comparative study. There is no evidence, how-
ever, that it was ever done, although there are countless references in Moyle’s memo-
randa to the change that took place in the political attitude of President Grant after
the death of Ivins.

Chapter 1

Bureau of Customs with more than 10,000 employees scattered
over the main centers of the world. I think I can say my record in
it was excellent. At eighty-one I became Assistant to the Secretary
of the Treasury. Finally, at eighty-three I was made president of a
high priests’ quorum.

From all the foregoing I cannot resist the conclusion that
surely there is divine guidance in the affairs of the Church and it
is that alone upon which it stands. He who knows the future as well
as the past and present has devised a good method of selecting
presidents, and thus far it has been eminently successful. The big
things were accomplished by men of mature years. Brigham
Young, afterjoseph Smith, had the greatest problems. John Taylor
fit equally into the period of his administration. Wilford Woodruff,
the apparently least fitted of all for outstanding leadership in
practical affairs, had some of the most vital practical problems to
meet, such as the continuance of the practice of polygamy and the
economic problem of labor and employment, and he met both in
a masterly way, though throughout his life spirituality was his
dominating and most outstanding characteristic. In the field of
politics and diplomacy in a small way, which I illustrate in my own
experience with him in politics over the Gibbs letter, 14 1 believe he
did better than George Q. Cannon, his first counselor, would have
done. And George Q. Gannon was a natural diplomat and experi-
enced in political affairs, whereas President Woodruff was not.
Lorenzo Snow, though not a great success in business, had shown
resourcefulness in his leadership in initiating business undertak-
ings in the Box Elder area over which he presided. He then showed
great leadership in getting the Church, when seriously embar-
rassed, out of debt. Joseph F. Smith’s long administration (though
I criticize heartily his politics) was a marked period of advancement
in matters both material and spiritual. I doubt that there was any
other man in the Church who would have done better under the
circumstances. Heber J. Grant’s administration is too close to

44 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 11, fd 3. The Gibbs letter (or Gibbs-
Logan letter) affair involved a message from George F. Gibbs, secretary to the First
Presidency, on official stationery to Cache Valley Mormon leaders during the Wood-
ruff administration suggesting that the Saints should vote for the Republican ticket to
be in line with “their file leaders,” meaning the general authorities. See Evans manu-
script, Box 18, fd 2.

My History

survey wisely and well, but during the Smith administration, Heber
took a back seat in business matters except when it was necessary
to raise money for some urgent reason. Then he was foremost, and
ever ready, and on hand and successful, as he very naturally and
worthily loves to tell. The fact remains that while he was not a great
intellectual preacher or writer, or doctrinal expounder, or intellec-
tual student of the religion, and often said he never had received
as president a revelation from the Lord to present to the people,
he nevertheless is now, in his 88th year, at the largest and most
important affairs in industry and finance in our great nation. His
administration will undoubtedly go into history as one of great
accomplishment. It will show, as does that of each of his predeces-
sors, that there was a great work to be done in his time, and that
he did it well. 45

My Motive: Let Truth Prevail

1 want to present the whole story of my relationship with the
Church as favorably as it can be done to the Church officials, to
give them every benefit of the doubt. But I will present the facts
truthfully and fully just as they are. This may not be published in
my lifetime, but its presentation should be such as to do no
injustice to any good man and the great cause of righteousness.
The weakness of men should be exposed so as to make others more
guarded, to diminish injustice and future errors. I hope to present
it in the most friendly, fair way, so that no criticism of my motives
can be made. Let truth prevail, error be avoided, and injustice
never confront my record. Leave the way clear for my mistakes
also to be corrected and exposed. Let the truth triumph in justifi-
cation of what I am trying to expose as error.

With that preface I will feel freer to say some things that have
perennially disturbed my mind, but thank God never soured it,
and with His help nothing ever will. There is too much good in all
good men ever to condemn them wholly. It is that good which in
the end counts and turns the balance in their favor. It is also my
experience that men who do good things are more numerous than
we generally realize. With all their mistakes, in the final recount-
ing, the good outweighs the bad so much that the bad will finally

45 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 11, fd 3.

Chapter 1

be out of sight and the good ever be in the light. Whenever I hive
tried to write about what I think is bad, the good has forced itself
so strongly on my mind that I am left to wonder whether wild I
have in mind is worth the effort. For example, because of my dep
interest in the career ofj. Reuben Clark, Jr., in the Church ofjesjs
Christ of Latter-day Saints and its influence on the affairs of tie
Church, I am made to realize that we are each opposed partisais
in politics and that may make me at least unfitted for an impartal
relation even of the facts. But I must try. 4t>

46 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 11, fd 4. See additionally for this intro-
ductory chapter the following: memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box IS, fd 1; memo-
randum dated July 1945, Box 12, fd 3.

Chapter 2

YOUNG MORMON

My father James Moyle was a young, lone man, only two years in
the territory from England when he married Elizabeth Wood in
1856. Just twenty-two years old, he was a stone-cutter employed
chiefly on what was called “Public Works,” or the building of the
Salt Lake Temple. President Heber C. Kimball knew him and
advised that he locate on the rich, fertile land at Fifth West near
First South. There I was born on September 17, 1858.

Real West Enders

Little irrigating was needed on our land because the water
stood near the surface, and good drinking water could be had
by digging for an hour in easy soil and soft clay. All else needed
was to get some stones and build around the soil and clay to a
depth of about six feet to get an ample supply of water. In
contrast, where President Kimball lived, and in fact most places,
it was necessary to go down in solid picking gravel about forty
or fifty feet and forever after draw water that distance, to say
nothing of building and keeping the well clean. But a pump was
not necessary on Fifth West. A rope and bucket were all that was
needed. There were only two homes in our ward on Seventh
West and I was baptized where the street is now on Second South
between Sixth and Seventh West in water about four feet deep.
We were real west enders. 1

1 Memorandum dated Feb. 1944, Box 10, fd 4, James Henry Moyle Collection,

Chapter 2

Father was a builder, and with his partners he erected several
cut-stone business houses on Main Street. But Father’s largest
contracts were on and during the construction of the Union Pacific
Railroad in the erection of stone piers and abutments for bridges
and in the large, stone roundhouse at Evanston, Wyoming. It stood
and was used until not many years ago. Father and his partner did
most of the stone work on the western division of the Union
Pacific. His contracts were subcontracts under those of Brigham
Young and Bishop John Sharp, who later was a director of the
railroad.

The construction engineer of the Union Pacific evinced his
high opinion of Father by always coming to him when he was in
trouble. If he could not get Father’s services, he would ask him to
recommend a reliable and competent man. He would ask him also
to send reliable, good mechanics. He said to Father that he could
rely on Mormon workmen as he could not on the men who were
transients in the country. 2

Father’s first partner was John Parry. When Parry later went
on a mission to Wales, Father and Peter Gillespie became part-
ners when there was a job big enough for the two. At the other
times both worked on the Temple Block which was always open
for stonecutters. The pay was mostly tithing scrip which was sold
for much less than cash due to the scarcity and frequent poor
quality of tithing goods. The flour, molasses, potatoes, and such,
however, were generally good. The bran and shorts were fine for
the milk cow and pigs, which every man of a family generally
had if he was at all thrifty. If not thrifty enough for that, he was
indeed unfortunate.

My father andjohn Parry built in 1 869 the old Walker Brothers
Building on South Main. While erecting that building, Father had
to go to Alpine to help my grandfather, John Rowe Moyle. He had
injured his leg and the favorably known physician of Provo, Dr.
Pike, had done his best to save the leg but gangrene had set in.

Library-Archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
Salt Lake City, hereinafter cited as CLA. All references hereinafter to box and folder
(fd) are for items from this collection.

2 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 4. See Robert G. Athearn, “Contracting for
the Union Pacific,” Utah Historical Quarterly 37 (Winter 1969): 16-40.

Young Mormon

Consequently, Father took Mother, me, and Dr. Ormsby, the
leading surgeon in Utah, to Alpine to amputate Grandfather’s leg
below the knee. We made a new record for time on that trip in the
wagon pulled by father’s fine pair of mules. I remember that
Joseph A. Young, son of Brigham and father of General Dick
(Richard W. Young), tried unsuccessfully to pass the team with his
fine horses on the road to his farm west of the Jordan River at
about Ninth or Tenth South. He was always sporty with horses and
had his own race track at or near the farm. This was the place where
at another time I saw Porter Rockwell make a horseman put down
his two pistols.’

The Moyles of Alpine

My grandfather’s home in Alpine was a unique experience in
itself. He had built a tower as a fort against the Indians. The tower
could be entered only through an opening on the level of the
ground and by crawling down about two feet and going through
an opening in the foundation just large enough for a man to pass
and then up two feet to the floor of the tower. A man with a club
could easily close the opening. The rooms of the tower were about
seven or eight feet high. The roof was never completed, except
that it was covered temporarily with brush. I slept in it often with
Uncle Joe who was less than a year older than I . 1

The home was about thirty or forty feet east. The farm road
ran between the tower and home. Had the Indians given serious
trouble, Grandfather contemplated constructing a tunnel connect-
ing the two. The home consisted of two good-sized rooms, the walls
of which were two feet thick of solid granite boulders from the
surroundings. Granite prevailed in Cornwall, where he came from,
and Grandfather was at home with the granite which abounded

• ! Memorandum dated Sept., Nov.-Dee. 1943, Box 10, fd 3.

4 Memorandum dated Aug., Oct. 1941, Box 9, fd 6. The “tower fort" in Alpine
has been the subject of much publicity over the years. It is still standing in 1997, but
despite efforts to restore it, it continues to deteriorate. See an example of James H.
Moyle’s attempts to restore or at least to preserve the structure in Gene A. Sessions,
ed., "A View of James Henry Moyle: His Diaries and Letters," unpublished manu-
script, 1974, CLA, pp. 95-97. Joseph E. Moyle was the youngest son of John Rowe
Moyle. See his autobiography in Sessions, "Biographies and Reminiscences,” sec. 9.
See additionally the sections on John Rowe Moyle, Phillippa Beer Moyle, Stephen
Moyle, Henry Moyle, and john Moyle in ibid., secs. 2-3, 6-8.

Chapter 2

on and around the farm. The house was typical of many of the
homes now to be seen in Cornwall. Some of the old walls are now
in the modern home built some years since from parts of the old
rooms by his son Joseph.

The fences around the home, orchard, and garden were all
built of granite with the earth only as mortar, but they were so
massive and well-constructed that they would be still standing but
for the idea that struck Uncle Joe and his family of having things
modern. Hence, the unique surroundings so much like that in
Cornwall and other parts of England have vanished forever, except
for the crumbling remains of the old tower. I pleaded with Joe for
years to have it rebuilt, but he did not, because his wife (troubled
with nervousness) thought it would attract strangers and thereby
disturb her peace and quiet. All the children are in favor of doing
so, but cannot persuade the mother.

Grandfather Moyle was one of the least in pioneer pursuits; I
never heard of his using a gun or going hunting, though that was
one of the material aids in those days in providing meat for
families. He did little farming himself. His boys did that and also
the hunting, and did so easily as that was nearest the choice
hunting grounds for bear, deer, sage and pine hens, and so on.
Joe, the youngest, distinguished himself as the bear hunter of the
family and killed quite a number. I think he frequently hunted
alone and as I remember killed bears when alone. He was an
exceptionally good shot and loved the sport. I went deer hunting
with him, but bagged nothing much. I remember, however, how
we shot across the little valley of Hamengog high up in the
northeast mountains. We tracked the deer for miles on the steep
mountainside frequently on snow, and once I lost my bearings and
coasted down on the snow so fast that I could not get myself in a
position to stop. I feared I might rush onto the rocks at the bottom
of the snow, but I finally got my feet in position where they were
lodged in the snow and stopped. We proceeded on our way, but
neither got another shot.

Like Joe, I loved to hunt. I had a fine muzzle-loading, double-
barrel shotgun. That muzzle-loading gun was the only one in use
when I commenced to shoot. I first had a flint lock. It cost little,
but I killed meadow larks with it a few times. I would regard that
now as a vandal’s act. I love so much to see and especially to hear

Young Mormon

them, hut then I did what others did and thought it real sport. I
was about fifteen when Father got me that double-barrel shotgun.

I was a big fellow for my age and loved a horse and a dog. I
made my first investment in a dog when I was fifteen or sixteen. I
paid ten dollars for a pure-bred Scotch retriever pup. He became
a beautiful dog. When Father heard of the investment, he said, “A
fool and his money parted.” No person of my acquaintance had
paid that much for a dog. Common dogs were plentiful and pups
were always given away, but I was stuck on having the best and
most beautiful hunting dog. He was a choice dog naturally, but I
spoiled him by whipping him for disobedience when the poor dog
was not adequately informed what it was for except that he had
attacked tame ducks and failed to realize the importance of the
objection. I knew nothing of training a dog. I frequently went
hunting with my horse and dog west of the Jordan River either for
rabbits in the sagebrush or for ducks southwest of the city.

When seventeen, I was five or six miles west of the city hunting
with a group of boys who (except myself) seldom hunted, and most
of them had to borrow guns. I had pasteboard wads for my gun
and thought I heard the shot rattle in the barrel. Believing that the
wadding had not been properly rammed down, I thought I would
save the shot, so I raised my gun to let it run into my hand, but a
limb or something caught the trigger and the powder exploded
and carried away everything on my left first finger between its first
joints but the inside skin. I stood in wonderment, and raising my
hand was surprised to see the other two joints of the finger drop
down on the back of my hand. Without experiencing any pain, 1
shook my hand and the finger dangled in the air. When I realized
what had happened, it pained me severely and bled freely. We
bandaged it up as best we could, and the doctors in town cut it off
at the hand, or unjointed it there. 5

Reminiscences of a Stonecutter

When Father built the two-story, rough-cut stone prison im-
mediately behind the old city hall on East First South, the mayor
of the city was Daniel H. Wells, second counselor to Brigham
Young. He was one of the finest and best men of the Church and

5 Memorandum dated Aug., Oct. 1941, Box 9, fd 6.

Chapter 2

the Rocky Mountains. None will question that. At that time I was
old enough to carry to Father a warm dinner and was with the men
as they ate, and 1 probably ate a part of Father’s. As the men ate
their dinners, I remember seeing the mayor come out of the back
door of City Flail, go down a few steps, and enter on the west side
of the basement. Fie would remain there a short time and then
return. I saw that repeated, for I remained often for hours. The
men indicated its significance by saying with a smile and wink of
the eye that it was the second or third time as the case might be. I
learned the full meaning when I heard them say that the city’s
liquor supply was kept there and that Squire Wells, as he was
familiarly called, was fond of liquor. His complexion was of the
rosy type and that, as a matter of fact, was distinctly visible on his
well-developed nose, the size of which some were pleased to
exaggerate. Nevertheless, I never heard of anyone saying he was
intemperate. Whether or not he did gel one or more tastes of
liquor in the basement is, of course, a matter of conjecture, but I
gained that understanding and concluded that the squire did
quietly indulge and did not feel that he was seriously violating the
Word of Wisdom.

I know my father, who would have given his life and all he had
for his religion, did not think a drink of toddy or even straight
whiskey was as serious as it is considered now. He did, however,
struggle valiantly and more or less consistently, as many of the best
churchmen did, to overcome the evil of drinking intoxicants. It
was not approved, but many had a naturally strong desire for it as
well as for tobacco. Father fought against both with a will and
determination of a gladiator, but was too often victim rather than
victor. His struggle and the struggle of his father (who was in the
same boat) taught me all 1 learned concerning the liquor and
tobacco habit. I resolved against it and strengthened my desire for
my children to avoid both.

I have two other memories of being there at the jail so
frequently which have lingered on my mind. It was when I was not
at school— summertime— and I must have been quite young. The
building was up some height, and two stories were not very
common in those days. They had a device that hoisted the layer of
stone to its resting place. The tall mast was held erect by guy ropes
fastened some distance away and tied with a bow knot. The men

Young Mormon

were working and Father was way up on the building. I must have
been very young for I pulled on the rope and it yielded. The knot
was loosed and the great mast fell and almost struck Father fatally.
I will never forget that, for I was terribly frightened. Father was
not paralyzed but it was serious. Father acted magnanimously. He
could see, I presume, that I was suffering sufficiently. 13

The second memory is small, but to me most interesting. I
remember there being considerable talk over the fact that an
ingenious feature of the structure was that the stones used in
building the jail had a round cannon ball with a diameter of about
an inch or an inch and a half in the joints of the center of each
stone, which was put there so that if there was an attempt made to
saw through the stone the saw would strike the iron ball, which
would revolve and make impossible sawing the stone. Just why that
should have attracted the attention it did, 1 do not know, but
because of its notoriety I preserved one of those cannon balls that
was taken from the jail and recently found it among my effects.
That substantial stone structure is still standing. '

Working on the Temple Block

When 1 was quite a large boy, Father had built a good reputa-
tion as a building contractor. So Brigham Young called him on a
mission (at first) to superintend the stonecutting for the Temple.
Later, Brigham appointed him superintendent of the entire work
of construction. Henry Grow was in charge of carpenter work
which was not extensive. 6 7 8 9 * 11 This was sometime between the summer
of 1872 when I started to cut stone on the Temple Block and 1877
when Brigham Young died, and he officially called Father on a
mission to work on the Temple and Father gave up his contracting
business for that mission.

6 Memorandum dated Sept., Nov.-Dee. 1943, Box 10, fd 3.

7 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. See also memorandum dated Sept., Nov.-
Dee. 1943, Box 10, fd 3.

8 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 3. See Wallace Alan Raynor, “History of
the Construction of the Salt Lake Temple,” M.S. thesis, Brigham Young University,
1961; Don B. Colvin, “Quarrying Stone for the Salt Lake Temple,” M.A. thesis,
Brigham Young University, 1959.

9 Memorandum dated Oct. 1937, Box 9, fd 3. James Moyle indicated in his auto-

biography that he first worked on the temple in 1871, worked elsewhere for a time,

and then became superintendent of the stonecutting for the temple two or three

Chapter 2

Father also superintended the construction of the Assembly
Hall on Temple Square. 10 I well remember Grandfather Moyle
taking me there and attending with him the School of the Proph-
ets. At the first meeting I remember very well Daniel H. Wells was
the speaker. I enjoyed his address because it was short and because
of his peculiar facial expressions. He had a peculiar movement of
the eye and the mouth when he spoke. The other speaker was
either Orson Pratt or Orson Hyde. He spoke much longer; there-
fore, I did not enjoy it so much. I was just a little fellow. 11 I think I
was not more than ten. It was held in the original Assembly Hall,
located on the southwest corner of Temple Square and very near
the sidewalk. You had to go down several steps to get into it. I
thought the massive chandeliers in it were marvelous, made chiefly
of a great mass of small glass prisms. They were somewhat similar
to the ones in the White House in Washington.

I first remember the Tabernacle when the carpenters were
making the pipes for the great organ. They worked in front of the
organ before the pulpits were erected. I remember one large pipe
that a man could crawl through. I then attended the funeral of
Heber C. Kimball there in June of 1868 before I was ten years old.
The speakers were on a platform (in front of where the stand is
now) with a cloth on it to improve the sound. Before the Taberna-
cle was completed, there was an open air place of assembly called
the Bowery, which was nothing but posts and brush over it, with
crude seats. As I remember it, it was located south of the east end
of the Tabernacle.

In the old days, everybody attended church in the afternoon,
and did so in the Tabernacle. 1J In those days and until recently,
the two o’clock Tabernacle meeting on Sunday was the biggest
event of the week for Latter-day Saints. The Sacrament of the
Lord’s Supper was always served. As a young man, when it was our
ward’s turn, I remember officiating in distributing or serving the
sacrament to the members present. The meetings were always two
hours or more long, as was the case in the ward meetings. If the

years later. See Sessions, “Biographies and Reminiscences,” pp. 55-56.

10 Memorandum dated Oct. 1937, Box 9, fd 3.

11 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 2.

12 Memorandum dated Oct. 1937, Box 9, fd 3.

Young Mormon

speakers did not occupy all the time, the president of the stake
(who usually presided) saw to it that the time was not lost by
occupying it himself. The speakers were called to the stand from
the audience and delivered impromptu addresses as the Spirit
directed, with no previous notice. The same rule was followed in
all the local or ward meetings which were held at night. Strange to
say, the meetings were well-attended, much better than now in
both ward and Tabernacle. In the Tabernacle, as a rule, the
speakers were fine, really worthwhile, and they dealt often with the
prophecies, especially of the Bible, foretelling the future of the
world, present conditions, and the early ending of this world with
the millennial reign of the Savior. I would not have missed as a boy
in my late teens the discourses of Orson Pratt for anything. I
remember his sermons as being magnificent, and believe many of
them will someday be honored and glorified. I often think I will
read them and want to, but do not seem to find time. When it was
advertised that Orson Pratt would preach in any ward, however far
away, I attended no matter how far I had to walk. I lived at First
South and Fifth West, so to go to the First Ward required a walk
of more than three miles. To go to the Twenty-first Ward on the
extreme northeast corner of the city would take a two-mile walk.
But we thought nothing of walking; it was the only thing to do,
especially to hear Orson Pratt. 1 '

In 1872 when I first worked on the Temple Block, the Temple
was about level with Main Street on the east end, but the west end
was much above the ground. The foundation and basement went
down to quite a depth, I often played with boys in the basement.
The stone in the basement was of a different color from the granite
in the superstructure and did not come from the same locality.

Henry Eccles of our Fifteenth Ward was the foreman of
stonecutters prior to Father’s call. Moroni Thomas’s father was
foreman between Eccles and Father for a year and possibly more.
Truman Angell, an uncle of Richard W. Young, was architect and
Richard himself was clerk in the office of the architect. The old
stonecutters on the Block whom I remember best were Peter
Gillespie, who at one time was Father’s partner in building opera-

13 Memorandum dated May 1943, Box 10, fd 1. See T. Edgar Lyon, “Orson
Pratt, Pioneer and Proselyter,” Utah Historical Quarterly 24 (1956): 261-73.

Chapter 2

dons; Eugene Fullmer, son of a Nauvoo Saint; William Stockdale,
grandfather of our Senator Elbert D. Thomas; Joseph Dover,
William Player, and William Barnes, of Nauvoo. Barnes worked on
the Nauvoo Temple and told us many interesting things about it
and the people there. Two others were Samuel Friday and Thomas
Howells. H

Father and his stonecutters spent their long lunch periods
discussing all kinds of topics from theology to war. It was a real
pioneer, tin-bucket luncheon club. The debates were often ex-
tremely instructive and I enjoyed the heated debates. Most of the
men knew their Bible and Church works of which there were then
very few. It is surprising how much they knew of history and
science. They had been converted in a most vital way and regarded
their religion as they did life itself. Their philosophy of life would
be appreciated even by men of real thought and broad knowledge.
Most of them would have made their mark in the world under
more favorable circumstances for they loved knowledge and the
truth above all. They were typical of the splendid men who
constituted the backbone and foundation stone of Mormon social
life. They were as immovable in their faith and their own moral
and religious foundations as the very granite itself. 1 '

There were many other stonecutters working on Temple
Block, but they worked in other sheds and projects. There were
long sheds covered with brush all around. Big oxen, the finest and
largest raised, pulled large two-wheel carts and carried the rough
stones in and the cut stones out to where they were dropped in
rows in the yard outside. The stones all had painted on them in
black letters marks which indicated exactly where they were to be
placed in the building. The cart had a strong pole or bar on top of
its tongue which was attached to the axle. It had a strong hook on
it by which the cart could be raised perpendicularly. The cart then
straddled the stone which usually weighed many tons, after which
a chain was put around the stone, the pole pulled down with a
rope, and the stone was raised. It would take days, possibly a week,

14 Memorandum dated Oct. 1937, Box 9, fd 3.

15 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 7. See Ephraim E. Ericksen, The Psychology
cal and Ethical Aspects of Mormon Group Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1922).

Young Mormon

to dress some of the stones and a big price was paid for them— $ 100
or more for some. 1 think the stone steps in the Temple with noses
were worth about $70 each. The nose was the delicate work and
so stonecutters were paid much higher wages than carpenters.
Many of the stones in the Temple required a veiy high degree of
skill and care, especially the one stone on either side of the arch
over the windows which came to an almost feather edge. You can
see them from the ground in the large round windows. The granite
was easily cracked, for it was not all one composition, but small
pieces of quartz, feldspar, and mica which fell apart when jarred.
The feather-edged part was cut last so that the jarring of the heavy
work would not injure it. If a miss hit were made or a hit made too
hard, it would destroy the job and a week’s work might (as
occasionally occurred) be lost. Men were paid by the job and not
by the clay. 16

Whiskey in Zion

The only business south of Second South was the city liquor
store on the southwest corner of Main Street. It was a small,
one-story, simple lumber structure, right on the corner. It would
be considered a shack today. I have an imperfect recollection of
the corner being called the White House. It was just large enough
for the little liquor that they sold in the city. The significant fact
was that it was the only place in which liquors could be legally
sold. 1 '

I remember working as a boy stonecutting on the Temple
Block and going more than once to the city liquor store with the
gallon tin can (in which Father and I carried our lunch and
evening meal to work) to buy a quart of whiskey for the men
with whom I worked, including Father. I do not think I was
permitted otherwise to participate, even though at fourteen I was
tall and husky. I also went over to the Tithing Office in the fall
and got a gallon of Dixie tithing wine for the same group, some
of whom were Nauvoo Temple builders and all devoted Latter-
day Saints. It is my recollection that I was permitted to enjoy

16 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 7.

17 Memorandum dated Sept., Nov.-Dee. 1943, Box 10, fd 3. See Philip Ray Ro-
gers, “Liquor Control in the State of Utah,” M.S. thesis, University of Utah, 1940.

Chapter 2

some of the wine. I liked it; the rest loved it. Some of the old
chappies much preferred the scotch, but in those days no scotch
came to Utah for ordinary folks so far as I remember. It was real
hard Valley Tan liquor that they drank, and not the most expen-
sive kind, but for those days good whiskey. As the railroad then
operated I suppose there was some scotch to be had and the
stonecutters doubtlessly got it, especially fine old Scotsmen like
Peter Gillespie, Father’s sometime partner . 18

Speaking of liquor, one of the most famous bartenders in the
valley was Harry Haines, my old and best district school teacher.
He married the apostate Bishop Andrew Cahoon’s daughter.
Cahoon was bishop of Murray and a fine old man. He was a
headstrong character, a surveyor by trade, and in many respects a
useful citizen and father of a large polygamous family. Even
Haines, while violently anti-Mormon, admitted to me that the
Church possessed an unusual number of outstandingly strong
leading characters like Bishop Cahoon who left their impress on
their families and the communities in which they lived. Haines
would not admit that we were Israelites, one of a city and two of a
family who had gathered in Zion, but he saw clearly that it would
be difficult to find another community of as wide extent, who
possessed as many upstanding and outstandingly strong men with
personalities and families such as that of Andrew Cahoon of
Murray. He, of course, knew Cahoon and his families. Haines
graduated from school teacher to the saloon keeper of Murray.
His home is still standing now in the center of Murray on State
Street. When he first went there it was just a village. The place was
noted in the early days as a place where whiskey could be had more
easily than anywhere else . 19

“Whiskey” Morton, another apostate of some note in Salt Lake
City, operated the municipal liquor store. William Margetts, the
brother of Phil, the popular comedian of the Salt Lake Theater,
operated what I believe was the only brewery in the city. It was
located across the street north of the Sixteenth Ward Square, now
the site of West High School. Phil later operated a saloon on First

18 Memorandum dated Sept., Nov.-Dee. 1943, Box 10, id 3.

19 Memorandum dated May 1943, Box 10, fd 1. See Clinton B. Ahlbert, “A His-
tory of Murray to 1905,” M.S. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1959.

Young Mormon

South east of West Temple and not far west of Dinwoodey Furni-
ture Store. Phil’s saloon was noted, in my mind at least, for the
group of interesting, convivial, well-known Mormon patrons who
met with Phil by instinct, common interest, mutual attraction, or
otherwise in the upper room of his two-story beer parlor and there
very frequently remained until it was too late for them to gel home
unaided. They even enjoyed good scotch. At least one of them was
a Scot and even after he became an outstanding, frequent, and
popular Tabernacle speaker, bis language showed something of
his origin or native land/"

In that little group who regularly patronized Phil Margett’s
saloon were three men from the office of President Young. (There
were others, but 1 was never present or saw them enter.) The first
of these was the treasurer of the Church, James Jack, or “JimJack,”
as he was always called. He imbibed so thoroughly that he never
got over the habit, though he remained as treasurer until his death,
notwithstanding the new order in the Church so thoroughly and
completely in favor of temperance. The second was David McKen-
zie, who was a clerk in Brigham’s office and later became a notable
and splendid Tabernacle preacher. He was withal an excellent man
whom I admired and enjoyed, but like my father never survived
the love of good whiskey or beer. The third member of the trio
from the Church Office was Horace Whitney, who like McKenzie,
was until death a clerk in the President’s office and earned his
living as such. Whitney was the father of Horace Whitney, the
theatrical play writer of the Deseret News and long-time secretary of
the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company. He often said to me, “Jim, you
stick to sheep and wool and 1 with sugar and we will get on all
right.” His older brother, Orson F., became still more distin-
guished, and was best known as Bishop Whitney, apostle, poet,
and historian.' 1

The group to which Father belonged more intimately were
builders such as William Folsom, the most prominent architect of

20 Memorandum dated May 1943, Box 10, fd 1. Reference is to David McKen-
zie. See paragraph below.

21 Memorandum dated May 1943, Box 10, fd 1. See also undated memoran-
dum, Box 8, fd 2. Whitney’s comment referred to Moyle’s involvement in the Deseret
Livestock Company.

Chapter 2

the time and father of Amelia, a favorite wife of Brigham Young.
Another was a blacksmith who was very popular with the builders
and especially Father and Folsom. Another intimate with the first
three and in the same class as to weakness for liquor, was Bishop
John Sharp of the Twentieth Ward, a partner of Brigham Young
in large contracts for the building of the original Union Pacific
Railroad and a director of the company until his death. They were
all sterling stalwarts so far as manhood, virtue, integrity, and
devotion to Deity were concerned, and everyone of them left fine
families of which they were proud and the children proud of their
fathers. The weakness for a “wee bit” (as the Scotsmen called it)
was their besetting sin which they all deplored and fought against,
but that they were all choice men there is no question. And that
they were a real part of the factors that have made for Mormon
stability in all other particulars there is no question. It was simply
Father’s one weakness against which he waged a never-ending
battle, although he overcame entirely his love of tobacco. 22

I failed to say in connection with Phil Margetts, the leading
Salt Lake Theater comedian and beer dispenser, and “Whiskey”
Mort on, that they left fine families, some of which I knew not only
well, but most favorably. Their business, however, did not promote
their advancement in the Church, which was the most of all
important factors in the community.

The city liquor business, however, was not only legitimate, but
was regarded as somewhat of a necessity. Liquor, in those days,
was a needed stimulant and pretty much everybody, so far as 1
know, considered it good for colds and snake biles, and a good
poison antidote. There were other “sins” which were considered
to be much more grievous than drinking. For example, to sell
buttermilk in those days was next to criminal. Neighbors often
treated each other to buttermilk when they made butter and
occasionally gave some to the unfortunate. I well remember a
Brother Johnson, an otherwise excellent man and father of a very
commendable family, who lowered his social standing by selling
buttermilk to overlanders on their way to California. For that
somewhat grave act he was dubbed Buttermilk Johnson. 23

22 Memorandum dated May 1943, Box 10, fd 1.

23 Memorandum dated Sept., Nov.-Dee. 1943, Box 10, fd 3.

Young Mormon

On the Trail of the Iron Horse

When I was fifteen, 1 worked the summer at the Temple. At
sixteen I spent the summer cutting stone for a culvert at the big
trestle (now a fill) about two or three miles west of Wahsatch
Station (near the Wyoming border) on the Union Pacific Rail-
road. I worked with Jack Sheriff and John Hislop. Due to some
trouble (I have forgotten what), we struck, and with an old man
we quit and went down the canyon in a wagon. We slept in the
wagon box at Morgan with the old man. He was drunk, and we
had quite a time.

That next winter, and I think the next, I attended school in the
Fifteenth Ward under my splendid teacher, Gentile Harry Haines,
later of Murray. He was my best teacher. He inspired me with a
desire to learn and devoted his personal attention to me in school
and out. It was my first real progress in school, and started me on
the course I ever after pursued devotedly, and determinedly. I will
say more about that later. During my seventeenth and eighteenth
summers, Father was employed by Union Pacific to build stone
piers and abutments on the Bitter Creek in Wyoming, and I
worked under him at the quarry in Weber Canyon at Devil’s Slide
and later at the bridges on Bitter Creek about six or seven miles
east of Green River. It was at this time that I first came in contact
with oil shale. It was getting cold in the fall and we made a fire on
the shale we had excavated in laying the foundation for the bridge
abutments, and to our surprise the shale under the fire burned as
soon as thoroughly dried. I have often wondered if this shale
covered richer oil bearing structures. Here we lived in a box car
with bunks, did our own washing, and had a real pioneer railroad
experience.' 1

Very soon after the Union Pacific Railroad entered the Salt
Lake Valley, its termination was at Llinlah, about seven or eight
miles southeast of Ogden. At the same time, the terminus of the
old Central Pacific was at Corinne, which was also created by the
advent of the railroad. The terminus of each road remained at
those points until an agreement between them was reached as to
where the junction or joint terminus should be. In the meantime,

24 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 2. Moyle would take great interest in later
excitement about the possibilities of oil shale development.

Chapter 2

Uintah and Corinne suddenly sprang into existence and became
thriving and prosperous business centers. 25

In 1869, I was about eleven years old. Uncle Henry Moyle,
living in Alpine, needed a wagon, so he drove his team of horses
to Salt Lake City. In those days many used slow-going oxen for like
purposes. He picked me up and I accompanied him to Uintah to
buy the wagon. We spent the day in making the trip to the bench
south of Uintah and above Kaysville, or where Layton is now. It
was not then in existence, as I remember. We camped there on the
plateau south of the depression made by the Weber River. We had
followed a well-travelled road, but the roads then were much as
nature provided, for the land was disturbed only by wagon travel.
The taxes spent on the roads consisted of a head tax on able-bodied
males over a given age. It required them to do one or two days’
work on the road per year or pay so much for someone else to do
it. Thus we had wearily and slowly plodded on, with rocks in the
road causing plenty of bumps and jolts. It was my farthest trip from
home, though it was about the same distance to Alpine from Salt
Lake City; I had frequently, maybe twice a year, made the trip to
Alpine to see my grandparents and uncles.

When night came, we made our bed in the open wagon box,
and I slept gloriously. In the morning, after the horses were fed
and our breakfast was over, we were on our way and soon came in
sight of the mouth of the Weber Canyon, and not long after as we
approached the Weber River Valley I could see in the distance
Uintah. There I saw the marvelous sight of the real “iron horse”
of which I had heard so much and had come so far to see. It was
a train just emerging from the canyon winding its way down. In
constructing the road, haste and mileage had been the watchword,
so they did not stop to remove hills when it could be avoided. The
iron horse and train were too far away to be seen very distinctly in
detail, but I marveled at it. We hastened across the narrow valley
and reached Uintah soon after the train arrived. It was still stand-

25 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 4. See Brigham D. Madsen and Betty M.
Madsen, “Corinne, the Fair: Gateway to Montana Mines,” Utah Historical Quarterly 37
(Winter 1969): 102-23; Reeder, “Utah’s Railroads,” pp. 58-64; Richard C. Roberts and
Richard W. Sadler, Ogden: Junction City (Northridge, CA: Windsor Publications, 1985).
pp. 31-44.

Young Mormon

ing with a volume of smoke coming from the stack, and occasion-
ally steam gushing out. My eyes were absorbed with the engine,
the bright trimmings, cow catcher, great wheels, smoke stack
(which was like a real chimney such as every building had then),
the tender loaded with coal. Its immense size fascinated me, but
now it would be insignificantly small and incomparable with even
the engines of twenty-five years ago, to say nothing of the present.
I remember also the great rush of business and the throng of
people near the railroad terminus in tents and shacks hastily
erected to shelter goods and people.

It was January 1870 when the Utah Central was completed to
Salt Lake City. I was present when the first train came puffing into
the station at the southeast corner of South Temple and Third
West, which was only three and a half blocks from my home. That
was a great event in the history of Salt Lake City and the first sight
many had of a railroad train. 211

We boys were often present to see the trains arrive, and
enjoyed especially the loud calls and competition of the hotel
runners, as we called them, seeking guests and passengers for the
hack drivers. They were always eager for the business of strangers,
as ready cash for a ride was scarce. People then generally walked
everywhere, excepting the few who had horses. There was not
much demand then for carriages, although hotel buses soon came
into use.

I think the only hotels in 1870 were the old Salt Lake House,
a lumber structure as I remember about where the Tribune
Building is now on Main Street, and the Townsend House, a large
(for those days) two-story adobe on the northeast corner of West
Temple and First South Streets. The Clift House, a two-story adobe
or brick, may have been where the Clift Building is now at Main
and Third South. Later came the three-story, brick Walker House
facing east on Main Street about the center of the block between
Second and Third South Streets. While the Townsend House was
comfortable and popular, the Walker House became the leading
hotel until the Cullen was built much later. The Cullen was the

26 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 4. See Gustive O. Larson, “Building the
Utah Central,” Improvement Era 28 (Jan. 1925): 217-27.

Chapter 2

first high-rise building erected in the city and it marked a distinct
advance in Salt Lake City growth. J '

My Education in Early Utah

When the history of pioneer Utah is written, as it will be sooner
or later by an impartial, broad-minded historian, it will reveal some
striking paradoxes, but the ultimate decision will be that there was
therein, as there has been throughout the history of our American
civilization, a divinity shaping its ends. There will be more great
minds like that of Professor Thomas Nixon Carver of Harvard who
will say that Pioneer Utah is one of the few choice fields for the
study of empire building. It is a significant fact that the pioneers
were located in the center of the intermountain west on what was
designated on the maps of the time as the Great American Desert,
and that Pioneer Utah is the most significant event so far in the
history of that vast section of the United States.

Who can now tell what part the University of Deseret played
in the great drama, and just why there was attracted to it a simple,
obscure character like Dr. John R. Park, a physician who was
promoted from school teacher in the obscure village in the south-
east corner of Salt Lake County to the presidency of the first
university west of the Mississippi River? Who can unfold to our
view the magnitude of the splendid work he did and the ramifica-
tions of the beneficent influence he wielded over the lives of so
many of the generation who came in contact with him? How far
was he and the university he loved responsible for the accomplish-
ments of the thousands who came within the realm of his and its
sphere?""

What a revelation it was to me when I came to use the library
in the south end of the old Deseret Hospital Building in 1877,
almost seventy years ago, and was informed that most of those
books were those of Dr. Park, who so quietly and modestly moved
within that community. I had never seen anything to compare with
it. It was my first sight of a real library. My father loved books, and

27 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 4.

2K Undated memorandum. Box 9, fd 2. See Ralph V. Chamberlin, The University
of Utah: A History of Its First Hundred Years, 1850-1950 (Salt Lake City: University of
Utah Press, 1960), pp. 61-120, for a survey of the Park period.

Young Mormon

had as many of them as any of our neighbors, but not exceeding
fifty, if that many. And few had more in Utah outside that library
Dr. Park gave to the university. I never heard of Dr. Park having
other worldly possessions. How choice and rare a character he was.
It is thus to my school teachers, the Deseret University, and Dr.
Park that I attribute my opportunity for mental development and
elevation from the humble walks of a west-side clodhopper to the
wider fields of growth and progress.”'

My primary education was in the Church district schools.
Everything was taught in one room— at first by one teacher— in the
district schools. Later, as the schools became larger, there was an
assistant, generally a woman. At some times there was an addi-
tional room provided for the assistant.”

1 very well remember that we were graded by the progress we
made in our McGuffey First, Second, and Third Readers, Ray’s
Arithmetic, and Pinnios’ Grammar. 1 was not a particularly apt
student and I think I started in at about the same place each year
for several years. Of course, there were only two or three classes.
I remember having studied addition, subtraction, and division,
and then being put in a high class; the same with the McGuffey
Readers. The Pinnios’ grammar system was obnoxious to me.
When I went to the university, Dr. Park made grammar interesting
with what was known as the Clark diagramming system, in which
the structure of the sentence was boxed— the nominator or subject
first, the predicate or moving force second, and the object or

Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 2. On September 15, 1876, Deseret Univer-
sity moved from the Council House to the old “Academy Building” in the Seven-
teenth Ward. This was a long, two-story, adobe building that stood on the corner of
First North and Second West across from the Sixteenth Ward (or Union) Square, now
the site of West High School. See Chamberlin, University of Utah, p. 108. The building
became the Deseret Hospital in 1884 after the university moved to a new building on
Union Square. The hospital continued to function in the old structure until 1905. See
ibid., p. 126; Andrew Jenson, Encyclopedic History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1941), pp. 184-85.

30 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. See C. Merrill Hough, “Two School Sys-
tems in Conflict: 1867-1890,” Utah Historical Quarterly 28 (1960): 13-28; Laverne C.
Bane, “The Development of Education in Utah, 1870-1896,” Ed.D. diss., Stanford Uni-
versity, 1940; M. Lynn Bennion, “The Origin, Growth and Extension of the Educa-
tional Program of the Mormon Church in Utah,” Ph.D. diss., University of California,
Berkeley, 1935.

Chapter 2

failure to have an object third, with the prepositions and subordi-
nate phrases boxed off underneath the three main divisions of the
sentence. That was comparatively easy and interesting. "

Harry Haines’s success as a teacher was due largely to the inspi-
ration he instilled into his pupils by relating such illustrations as
that of learning to articulate clearly in the face of natural impedi-
ments such as Demosthenes suffered. He persisted in trying to
speak with pebbles in his mouth to overcome his natural impedi-
ment, and made a success thereby. In spite of Harry Haines giving
up teaching for the more lucrative business of bartending in Mur-
ray, he made good at that and came to be known as the “Mayor of
Murray,” though he never held the office or any public office. I
have always honored him for what he did for me, and Dr. John R.
Park likewise, though I was not such a favorite with him. He had
too many, I presume, more promising. But I was surprised later to
discover that the more precocious made so little progress later. 12

I think Father’s chief purpose in having me go to the university
was to break up my association with some of the ward boys who
were not very desirable. After one year at the university I spent
more time in district school, then a year at Morgan’s College on
First South between West Temple and Second West. That was
especially notable for its commercial course, which I am sorrv I did
not take.”

In the fall of 1877 I became a university student again in the
old adobe Deseret Hospital Building across from the Sixteenth
Ward Square. The old two-stoiy building had been used as a
hospital, and after the university moved again, the building was
used as a knitting factory. The entrance was at the center of the
building on First West and on the south side of the entrance was
a classroom and beyond that the library, which as I mentioned
consisted chiefly of the books Dr. Park had accumulated and had
given to the university. On the north side of the entrance were one
or two more classrooms. The president had his office on the north
side of the upstairs. On the south side of the upstairs was the main

31 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2.

32 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 3.

33 Memorandum dated Feb. 1935, Box 9, fd 3. See also undated memorandum,
Box 9, fd 2.

Young Mormon

classroom where pretty much all of the normal school courses were
taught. The normal department was the principal part of the
university. In the two years ending in the spring of 1879, when 1
was twenty years of age, I completed the normal course and what
was known as the course in mathematics. This consisted of a
one-year course in algebra, geometry, trigonometry, measuration,
and survey. We spent three or four days in actual surveying under
Professor Joseph B. Toronto. He taught all of those studies, as well
as Greek and Latin. 1 spent part of a year studying Caesar’s wars
and spent one quarter on Greek. Both were extremely difficult
studies for me, particularly the Greek, which did not appeal to me
at all, so I soon gave it up. I was interested in Latin, however,
because I understood it was very desirable for a lawyer. I also took
the course then given in mineralogy under Dr. Joseph T.
Kingsbury. I enjoyed it immensely and stood higher in it than
probably anyone else.’ 1

When fifteen, I had attended the Deseret University, then held
in the Council House where the Deseret News Building now stands
at the corner of Main and South Temple Streets. The building, a
two-story structure, was set back about ten or fifteen feet from the
street and the property was surrounded by a picket fence, with
nothing but mother earth for a sidewalk, although there might
possibly have been some gravel on it. The Main Street sidewalk
was the popular place for our athletics, which consisted mostly of
jumping, as I remember.' 1

I was not a regular university student. The institution then
taught spelling, grammar, arithmetic, possibly geography, and
what was then called rhetoric. Professor Park, the president of the
institution, taught all or most of these classes. Professors Francis
M. Bishop, Joseph L. Rawlins, Joseph B. Toronto, and Joseph F.
Kingsbury were the only other teachers I now recall. 11 ’

34 Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 2. See also memorandum dated Feb. 1935,
Box 9, fd 3; n28 above. See additionally the diagram of the university facilities in the
“Union Academy Building” in Chamberlin, University of Utah, p. 99.

35 Memorandum dated Feb. 1935, Box 9, fd 3. Moyle later became famous with
his aptitude for “jumping.” In the 1930s he made news by outjumping his employees
in the Bureau of Customs even though he was nearly eighty. For a survey of the Uni-
versity of Deseret in the Council House, see Chamberlin, University of Utah, pp. 16-126.

36 Memorandum dated Feb. 1935, Box 9, fd 3. Rawlins resigned from the fac-

Chaptkr 2

A Diffident Young Man in Utah Society

The most severe affliction that hindered me throughout my
education was bashfulness. My social timidity was so great that in
the presence of girls I might as well have been paralyzed. When
old enough to notice the girls and admire them in the district
school, I would walk around the block rather than walk alone with
a girl, especially one with whom I would like to make a hit. I had
no confidence in myself around girls, and yet with the boys I was
one of the loudest and roughest. 1 thoroughly enjoyed roughhous-
ing with them. But, oh how meek and quiet and docile I was in the
presence of girls. For example, no matter how hard I studied even
in college, I never made extra good recitations, because I was so
conscious of my weakness and timidity. I was ambitious, however,
and I determined to make something of myself and to overcome
my backwardness.”

No girl or woman ever refused to accept my invitation to
accompany me anywhere, but I have to admit that they had very
rare opportunities to do so. That was the one great misfortune of
my youth; I fully realized it and was humiliated by it. I was so
extremely shy that it required more courage than I had even to be
around girls. I was afraid that I would be so dumb and make such
a bad impression that it would make my bashfulness even worse.
I contented myself with the belief that I would eventually overcome
my great weakness and would achieve that which would give me
social standing and confidence in myself.

One of the best homes socially in the territory was that of
Captain William H. Hooper, delegate to Congress and successful
businessman. He had four charming daughters, all dark brunettes.
The captain was a real Southern gentleman who had drifted west
after being a captain on a Mississippi riverboat. He joined the
Church and married an attractive, fine, motherly Mormon girl.
Though never a very active churchman, he was a highly respected
citizen. There was an air of refinement about the entire household

ulty in 1875 and was succeeded by Toronto. Park, Bishop, and Toronto composed the
entire faculty until 1877 when Kingsbury took Bishop’s place in the “Famous Faculty
Triumvirate.” See Chamberlin, University of Utah, pp. 107-108.

37 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. Moyle often recalled his youthful “diffi-
dence,” an archaic term meaning timidity or shyness.

Young Mormon

that greatly distinguished it. There were, however, few elaborate
or expensive dinners given there.

I visited the Hooper home more than any other, not because
I had fallen in love with either of the girls, but because they were
all socially attractive and very generally admired. Mary, the eldest,
had married the oldest son of William Jennings, and was a social
leader with a very attractive home. The next daughter, Hattie, was
nearest my age and very charming. Notwithstanding the social
standing of the girls and family, they were naturally agreeable and
unassuming and charming in their conduct toward all (irrespective
of social standing or favor) whom they cared to entertain.

Nothing can illustrate better what I would like to describe in
them all than my experience with Hattie. I met her soon after 1
emerged one day from the east gate of the Temple Block in my
working clothes with more or less of the stonecutter’s dust on me,
and my face was probably grimy. I was just a little embarrassed, for
I looked at my worst, but to my great relief she was just as friendly
and as sociable as she could be and tried to make me feel comfort-
able with her at once. This was in striking contrast to another
meeting not far from the same place with a young lady of much
less prominence who hardly recognized me as she passed me with
her head high.

Hattie was very popular with all and especially with that
outstanding West Pointer, Willard Young, whom she later mar-
ried. He was a real success in the Army and distinguished himself
as the army engineer who had charge of building the locks at The
Dalles on the Columbia River. Unfortunately, he left the Army to
become active in Church work where he failed as a leader. He was
so trained and fitted for the Army that his education seemed to
hinder rather than to help him in civilian life. His wife was
disgusted with the change to civilian life and their home was not
a happy one. There was no open rupture, but their harmony and
happiness was noticeably disturbed.

Libby, the next in age, was quite as popular and clever. I greatly
admired both, but did not fall in love with cither. While on my
mission I corresponded with both and greatly valued the family,
because it was so educationally and socially refining to associate
with them. Neither Mother nor Father had any glimpse into such
social relations. That was the case with all the Fifteenth Warders,

Chapter 2

with the possible exceptions of the bishop, General Robert T.
Burton’s first family, and the family of John Clark, who all had very
nice and well-furnished homes.

Elias Morris, later bishop of the Fifteenth Ward, was in my
father’s class, though he was more prominent later after Father’s
death. He also had two families and the struggle for necessities
stood in the way of much luxury. The homes of the General
Authorities of the Church were more or less the same, even when
(as in Brigham Young’s case) they were well off. Numerous families
prevented each from having very much luxury, because each wife
had to be kept on a common parity with no special favors to any
one. That rule very generally prevailed. Hence the polygamous
homes could not compare with the Jenningses or Hoopers. It was
for that reason— so he would have a place fitted especially for large
and dignified entertainments, as well as to please his last love— that
Brigham Young built the Amelia Palace.'"

Clarissa Young had appealed to me more than any other girl
I met in school. Clint, as everyone called her, had everything I
lacked— family distinction, a father almost worshipped by his peo-
ple as a great leader, a home of luxury, and social distinction. That,
however, did not count so much to me as the fact that she was the
very embodiment of that characteristic (which I lacked so com-
pletely) of being at home anywhere with anyone, high or low. She
was as natural and attractive to me as the flowers that grow, bloom,
and flourish in the surrounding hills. She would accost and chat
with Professor Joseph B. Toronto as if he were one of her most
intimate chums, when all the other girls felt they could not reach
him with a ten-foot pole. He too was very reserved and diffident
then. This was before he became openly interested in anything but
his work in teaching. He was almost as reserved as Professor
Kingsbury before he received his doctorate and became a recog-
nized leader in his vocation. But Clint always made me feel at home
in a group of girls. When in a group of girls I thought she singled
me out and went out of her way to make me feel comfortable.

38 Memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6. Also known as the Gardo
House, the Amelia Palace was named for Harriett Amelia Folsom Young, Brigham’s
“last love.” Originally intended as an official residence for the president of the
church, only John Taylor lived there and for a short time.

Young Mormon

On St. Valentine’s Day at school (we all sat in one room), she
wrote a poetic valentine of four or five verses, and Frank J. Cannon
delivered it to me in the schoolroom, which gave me the thrill of
my life; I felt elevated beyond measure. Before leaving my desk,
Frank said, “If you do not follow that up, you are a damned fool.”
Notwithstanding all that, I very rarely called on Clint, and never
asked her to go anywhere with me for the same reason that I did
not court the Hooper girls. For another thing, I knew intuitively
that John Spencer was serious in his devotion to Clint. The
relationship between the two was clear. John was clever and
dramatic and entertaining, both in voice and action. He was a
first-class singer and a coming dramatic actor of attractive appear-
ance and distinguished family. If I interfered and got anywhere it
would only have disrupted a lovely and manifestly congenial
relationship. I also felt that if I had a chance, I would have to give
up my very life’s ambition, because I could only offer the surround-
ings of a stonecutter or building contractor in a small sphere, for
such it was then. She was too good for me to lower that much. So
I merely kept up (until her recent death) a very cordial friendship
I have always greatly valued. In fact, I have never valued a lady’s
acquaintance more, excepting that of my wife.

If I needed anything concerning Clint to confirm my conclu-
sion that I could not marry until I was established in a law practice,
it was her statement to a bunch of us at school that she had never
done any cooking or kitchen work even down to setting a table. 39

My Determination and Ambition

I was extremely bashful, a real case. Yet I lacked nothing in
ambition and determination to overcome it and outstrip my
apparently more-favored associates who had no social impedi-
ments. All my life, I told myself that 1 would make the goal.
Although my surroundings socially, financially, and even reli-
giously were against me, I determined to be a lawyer because the
field was open so far as Mormon lawyers were concerned. Even
the sons of the religious elite did not enter that field. In all the
other fields of intellectual ambition, I was handicapped, because I
was in competition with the elites. For years I was too modest to

39 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 4.

Chapter 2

disclose my ambition, except to my father and an intimate friend,
and then only under a vow of secrecy. I did not know how it was
to be accomplished. In a general way, it was my big ambition to
achieve success in my chosen profession, first so that I might live
comfortably and provide my family with the advantages I did not
enjoy. In fact, I did not know what the law profession was all about,
except that lawyers were well-paid and were potent factors in the
world, and it was the best stepping stone to public life, honor, and
power, especially for the poor man. But 1 did have also a great
ambition for the welfare of my family and of our downtrodden
and abused people, to meet successfully their enemies. 1 knew of
no one from our part of the community in which I lived that had
ever intimated even an ambition for anything of the kind."’

I always loved animals, especially dogs and horses. When 1 was
fourteen, my father gave me a well-bred, three-year-old colt, which
we kept for many years first as my riding pony and later to pull a
cart or buggy. I always wanted a farm (Father did also), and to raise
fine horses; one of my boyhood ambitions was to be a rancher. At
another time, when the prospect of going east to school was bad,
I thought of becoming a machinist, though I was not particularly
mechanical. I did not want to be a clerk in a store, because it
seemed sissy to me and better fitted for the feminine dandy, which
I was not and despised. In those days, there was practically nothing
for a young fellow to do but farm, ranch, work in a store or shop,
drive teams, be a common laborer, or ordinary mechanic. There
was some mining, but our people did not engage in that with few
exceptions. We were to be home makers, community-builders,
preachers of the Gospel, raisers of large families, and builders of
the Kingdom of God. Mining was mostly prospecting, which meant
being wanderers, living isolated in cabins in the mountains, or
living in mining camps where saloons, gambling, brothels, shoot-
ing, murder, immorality, and drunkenness were the chief sources
of entertainment. Therefore mining was not the place for a Lat-
ter-day Saint. There was much of truth and wisdom in that teach-
ing. Good men, however, could live in such places, and finally the
prevailing sentiment in mining camps came to be moral and

40 Memorandum dated Dec. 1934, Box 9, fd 3. See also undated memorandum,
Box 8, fd 4.

Young Mormon

Christian rather than the opposite. That is very distinctly the case

now.

Brigham Young had good lawyers, and I always wanted to be
of service to my people, so it seemed to me that through law I could
accomplish much. But again, that was only a part of it. At that age
I really thought that the law was simply the greatest field that was
open to such poor boys as Abraham Lincoln and James Henry
Moyle. I did believe, however, that if I equipped myself well I could
be of real use to my people as well as myself and family. In
conclusion, the law was the great field that the Mormons did not
enter and in which the bluebloocls of the Church could have no
advantage over me. I do not know what caused Alfales Young or
Bruce Taylor to become lawyers, but those were my reasons. 1 '

The Mormon-Gentile Contest

My hatred for religious persecution was promoted consider-
ably by the vivid and impressive testimonies borne every Sabbath
by Saints from foreign lands as well as those who had lived through
the “wrongs of Missouri and Illinois.” It was not uncommon to
hear added to these testimonies solemn oaths of vengeance which
in turn gave rise to the talk about Mormon avengers and Danites
and so on as depicted by the apostates. But there can be lit tle doubt
that there was truth in the claim that some Saints violated God’s
law of “vengeance is mine” by promising to take revenge on the
unrighteous persecutors of the Church. It was that kind of atmos-
phere in which I grew up, and I learned a hatred for persecution
and even a certain desire for revenge. 1 '

Our neighbors in the Fifteenth Ward were all English, Welsh,
and Scottish, or at least all of the heads of families in my early
childhood were from Great Britain and the United States north of
the Mason-Dixon line. There were no Scandinavians or Southern-
ers among my earliest recollections. All of them were devout
Latter-day Saints who had given up home, family, and country for
religion and had suffered persecution for their beliefs. Conse-

41 Memorandum dated Dec. 1934, Box 9, fd 3. See also undated memorandum,
Box 8, fd 4. See Leonard [. Arrington, “Abundance from the Earth: The Beginnings
of Commercial Mining in Utah,” Utah Historical Quarterly 31 (1963): 192-219.

42 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2.

43 Memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6.

Chapter 2

quently, what was of the greatest influence in my young life was
the collective testimony they bore of the divinity of Morntonism.
They realistically related their experiences of being repudiated by
parents, brothers, and sisters, of losing caste socially, and of
marvelous dreams and healings by faith and obedience to Gospel
law. Their stories of deliverance from physical persecution and
actual sufferings thrilled my soul. The testimonies were related in
the Sunday night meetings and Thursday afternoon (fast day)
testimony meetings. I witnessed much of the latter when I became
a deacon and as such had to clean and heat the room for those
meetings. 11

While imbibing all of this rhetoric, I heard Republican Gover-
nor George L. Woods say there was enough wood in the mountains
to build gallows on which to hang all the Mormons. I do not
remember the fact but I think Woods was applauded for that
speech. I had heard my father read what was said in Congress
earlier, when the Mormon issue was before it. The Democrats
always seemed to speak on their right to govern themselves, and
that had thrilled and stirred my soul. 1 ’

In addition to the Governor Woods incident, I witnessed
United States deputy marshals in the late afternoon of the election
day in August 1874, come by force and take the ballot boxes from
the old City Hall with the street in front jammed with people. I
followed them down to Main Street, then down that street with
such a crowd that they were forced into the entrance of ZCMI drug
store to keep on their feet and get another start down the street.
I was next to them most of the way and ready to follow the lead of
any friend of the Mormons. I wanted to see the boxes taken from
them to prevent their stuffing the boxes with fraudulent votes,
which I believed to be their objective. I am not sure but I think
that was when one of the tails of Mayor Wells’s Prince Albert coat
was pulled off as he tried to get through the crowd into the
entrance of City Hall. He got in and came out on the balcony above
to command that the peace be preserved. I believe that was the
election in which his command was followed by a line of policemen

44 Memorandum dated Jan. 1945, Box 12, fd 1.

45 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. This Woods speech incident
took place sometime in 1873. See Evans manuscript, Box 17, fd 6.

Young Mormon

coming out and battering the heads of the offending intruders with
their big billy clubs; N. V. Jones, a tall special deputy, was in the
first rank and cracked down on the head of a prominent and
offensive “Liberal.” He was indicted for attempting to murder him.
He did put him out of business for some time. In all such I was
present if I had the opportunity. I was strong and athletic and keen
for service, but too young or unknown to be in the special service.

I was old enough to take some notice of the so-called judicial
crusade of 1870-1872 under Judge James B. McKean. I remember
well, for example, the Englebrecht liquor case in August of 1870.
The city police turned $22,000 worth of liquor into the gutter
which ran down the same past the bakery down the street. The
baker’s horse and buggy were hitched in front of the store which
was south of where the Tribune Building is now. The horse being
thirsty drank enough of the whiskey and water in the ditch to make
him gay. When the old baker tried to drive to his home, the drunk
horse caused a disaster in which the baker’s leg was broken. This
made it a notable event in my young life as well as in those of my
neighbors, for the baker, a member of our ward, was injured
seriously.

I also have a good recollection of the John C. Sandberg
naturalization case, and the others that followed. So I spent my
most impressionable years during the exciting times in the 1870s
when Utah was under the rule of such tyrants as McKean and R.
N. Baskin. This illustrates something of my background for a
mission and college.’'

Many of the carpetbag officials came to Utah not to govern
but to reform the domestic and religious affairs of the governed,
believing that polygamy was the sum and substance of the Mormon
system, and officials in Washington had no desire or intention of
interfering with such action. The Republican platforms on which
they had been elected contained a plank calling for the abolition
of the twin relics of barbarism: slavery and polygamy. Some of

46 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. Moyle’s memory of this munici-
pal election day conforms essentially with the account in Edward W. Tullidge, History
of Salt Lake City (Salt Lake City: Star Printing Company, 1886), pp. 608-14.

47 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. See Tullidge, Salt Lake City, pp.
512-22.

Chapter 2

those officials were religious fanatics and not a few knew no limit
to their fanatical instincts. And Brigham Young was by no means
exempt from fanaticism. He even said that men should wear bowie
knives or stick pins on their shirts in order to fight against
enemies. 48

An exceptionally fine non-Mormon priest was Episcopal
Bishop Daniel Tuttle, who throughout his long residence here
commanded the respect of all classes. He refused to join in the
religious and political crusades against the Mormons. I well re-
member seeing the stone cut for St. Mark’s. The first Episcopalian
religious services were conducted in Independence Hall on Third
South a few rods west of Main Street. Tuttle came to Utah with
some prejudice, but he stands out conspicuously as no other
so-called evangelical preacher did in my early life. He later went to
St. Louis where he served again for many years with marked
distinction. He set the pace for his successors who generally
followed his example. I have had great respect for the Episcopal
clergy wherever I have found them. They are educated, conserva-
tive, and dignified. They do not get down to the level of intolerance
with most of the Methodist and Presbyterian preachers. Too many
of the latter would have joined in the days of burning at the stake
unorthodox Christians. As a boy I hated them just as 1 respected
Bishop Tuttle and the quiet, unostentatious, and modest Catholic
Bishop Lawrence Scanlan, who tended to his own knitting and let
other people’s business and affairs alone. He too will go down in
the history of Utah as a greatly honored citizen and priest. Imme-
diately after the erection of the little red brick Catholic churchon
Second East, Father took me to one of the first services held in he
building. 1 well remember the odd impressions I had whet a
member passed the bowl and they dipped their fingers in the wtter
and touched their forehead, eyes, nose, and mouth with the waer.
It is hard for me to say just what I thought, except that it seeued
superstitious, but I had always heard that much of Catholicism \as
superstition. Father, however, gave me some idea of its saced
character in the minds of the people. 4 ”

48 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 5.

49 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4. See James W. Beless, Jr., “Darel
S. Tuttle, Missionary Bishop of Utah,” Utah Historical Quarterly 27 (1959): Robert J.

Young Mormon

I think it best not to mention the names of those I detested
among religionists, for history will not extol them. Their petty,
miserable falsehoods and misrepresentations will go into obscu-
rity. But I take pleasure in honoring the two pioneer non-Mormon
religious leaders and those after them who followed in their
footsteps. They accomplished something of value for Mormons
and Gentiles alike. 50

Polygamy, First Hand

The big issue of all the anti-Mormon feeling, plural marriage,
was a very different thing from what even our own young people
now think it was, to say nothing about the gross misconceptions
of the total strangers to it. The silence of our people on the subject
now is nothing short of remarkable, especially to one who lived in
Utah in the 1880s and 1890s when it was the most talked of and
publicized subject before the public eye. It may be due to the fact
that one extreme generally follows another, like the movement of
the pendulum of a clock. 51

When 1 was about fifteen. Father courted and married Aunt
Maggie (Margaret Anna Cannell). It caused Mother many heart-
aches, and I well recall her emotions when she knew Father was
away with his new-found love. But Mother endured heroically with
only minor complaints and protests. She submitted to the inevita-
ble widi Christian devotion and reconciliation, but I am glad my
wife and children have been spared the experience. I have always
believed that Father did about as well as any of the polygamists,
and the family was frequently referred to as rather a model
polygamist family, but I knew of the jealousy and the heartaches
that could not always be suppressed when Father clearly exhibited
his appreciation for his young wife who was inclined to humor him
more than Mother would, particularly in his taste for liquor.
Mother was adamant against it, because she knew thoroughly
Father’s failing for it, but Aunt Maggie liked it about as well as
Father did, and he went to her when he could not resist the desire

Dwyer, “Pioneer Bishop: Lawrence Scanlan, 1843-1915,” Utah Historical Quarterly 20
(1952): 135-58.

50 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4.

51 Memorandum dated May 1938, Box 9, fd 3. See Sessions, “View of James
Henry Moyle,” pp. 14-19.

Chapter 2

for liquor. Mother was not narrow on the subject; she made as
much as ten gallons at a time of the most choice currant wine
(gathering the currants and making the wine herself) for Father
and herself, and would give me some. It had a real kick in it, and
1 have often used a straw when Mother could not see to get some.
I never tasted anything better, and I doubt if anything better was
ever made.

I have always believed Father’s success was due not only to his
having two good women for wives and good judgment on his own
part, but more than all to Mother’s devotion to her religion. She
would have made a real practical martyr, not because she was
overly religious or fanatical, but because she knew nothing else.
She was born into the Church during the trying days of Nauvoo
and passed her young life on the plains of Iowa in Winter Quarters,
and pioneering in Utah. She married at seventeen without educa-
tion, so all she knew was religion, labor, and hardship with a little
fun, occasionally a dance or concert. Singing the songs of Zion
constituted most of her diversion. I was born when she was
nineteen and she had a baby not more than each two years
thereafter until there were fourteen. 32

When Aunt Maggie’s first baby (Edith) was born, both wives
lived in the old house. Mother was at Woods Cross at the time
visiting her mother. Father was in trouble for help, so I walked on
the railroad tracks to Woods Cross and came back home with
Mother who waited on Aunt Maggie and did so nobly and ungrudg-
ingly. I must have been about fifteen. I think the balance of Aunt
Maggie’s children were born in the Bywater house. 33

1 well remember Mother cooking in the open fireplace with
pots and skillet, and recollect the fact that buffalo chips were
sometimes used with the sagebrush to make fires and even to help
cook. I remember that it was a great event in the family and in the
neighborhood when the first cook stove, a “No. 7 Charter Oak,”
came to our house. Mother frequently baked bread in it for the
neighbors and particularly newcomers who had neither cooking

52 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. Of the fourteen children of James and
Elizabeth Moyle, only six survived to adulthood.

53 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. James Moyle bought the George Bywa-
ter house in the Fifteenth Ward for his second family.

Young Mormon

utensils nor fuel. I took bread to a new family across the street one
night, and as I approached I heard beautiful singing with a feeling
and emotion I had seldom heard. “Hard times, hard times come
again no more.” I will never forget it, young though I was. They
were very poor and later moved to Tooele where they ran a store
in a dugout.

Mother was the good angel of the neighborhood; she was
clever and willing at sewing and cutting out clothing, at spinning
and carding, and weaving and cooking. She was always willing to
teach the poor English and Welsh women who had not been reared
in pioneer life. It was her pleasure. She made butter and divided
the buttermilk with the neighbors, the same with the heart and
liver and sweetbread of the pigs and calves when we killed. She
even had time to he a block teacher, notwithstanding her family
duties. She would undertake to set a broken limb or aid in any kind
of an operation. I remember how she would jump on a horse
bareback, throw her knee over his shoulder and ride sidesaddle
like a circus rider. She could not be beaten in doing things like
that. She had no education. I was quite grown when Charley
Pierson (who later became a lawyer) came to the house and taught
Mother to read and write.

Her father, Grandfather Daniel Wood, located on his arrival
here in 1848 on the northeast corner of South Temple and First
West. Then in 1849 he took up his homestead at Woods Cross.
Perrigrine Sessions had located in Bountiful about four months
before, and they were the first settlers north of Salt Lake City,
hence the upper part of Bountiful came to be called Sessions
Settlement. Grandfather said that there was a question when they
took out the water whether there would be enough water for the
two families. Now there is a farming community of more than
5,000 using the same water supply. Grandfather, being in an
unsettled section and having a large family, built his own school-
house and meetinghouse and maintained a school teacher him-
self. In my time this was Charley Pierson. I would like to have
the iron bell which hung in the old schoolhouse and called in
family and neighbors to church school, concerts, dances, and so
on. Grandfather’s boys constituted a very good string band. He
often brought in entertainers to his place— conjurers, sword swal-

Chapter 2

lowers, and lantern slide pictures. He was a real patriarch and
ruled as such.’ 4

So I grew up in a polygamous family. I saw firsthand the
blessings and curses. One thing I can say for certain and that is
that I could not have had instilled in me a higher ideal of morality
and chastity, which is and was far from the general beliefs concern-
ing the state of polygamy in Utah. I feel indebted to the Church
leaders, especially in the Fifteenth Ward, who instilled into my very
fiber the belief that sexual morality was one of the very highest
moral obligations of man and that the violation of sexual morality
was in fact the most hideous crime man can commit save that of
murder alone. Yet many is the time, especially in traveling among
strangers to my religious faith, that I have been asked, “Well, how
about polygamy in Utah?” It was in my early and numerous trips
east a never-failing question. No one ever asked about “morality in
Utah.” 55

Great Salt Lake City

My memory of Salt Lake City commences after the construc-
tion of the high wall around the Temple Block and the cobble wall
nearly as high around the Tithing Office, Deseret News, the homes
of Brigham Young, extending as it did to First Avenue and running
northerly, the extension of which was constructed of earth. That
was particularly true of the high wall made of earth on Capitol Hill,
which stood, as near as I can remember, just west of where the
Capitol now is and on to the north. It was constructed in 1853 as
a protection against the Indians. 56

My first distinct recollection of seeing anything east of Main
Street was that of Eagle Gate. It was constructed of timber and, I
remember, was closed with light poles, which were frequently used

54 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. See William R. Purrington, “The His-
tory of South Davis County from 1847-1870,” M.S. thesis, University of Utah, 1959;
Sessions, “Biographies and Reminiscences,” pp. 61-71; Gene A. Sessions, “Conscience
More than Comfort: Daniel Wood,” Latter-day Patriots: Nine Mormon Families and Their
Revolutionary War Heritage (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1975), pp. 43-63.

55 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 5.

56 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. Great Salt Lake City became Salt Lake
City in 1868. Jenson, Encyclopedic History, p. 741. See additionally Charles B. Ander-
son, “The Growth Patterns of Salt Lake City, Utah, and Its Determining Factors,”

Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1945.

Young Mormon

for such purposes where pole fences were in use. A little later there
were two gates made of pickets which swung from the sides to the
center. There was a road through the gateway north to City Creek
on North Temple. There stood at the northwest corner of State
and North Temple a large blacksmith shop in which tools were
made and sharpened for cutting stone and other work, shoeing
horses, and accommodating the public generally. Just west of that
gate was a large flour mill owned by Heber C. Kimball, whose home
was on that block facing Main Street. From there on there were
no buildings. Brigham Young owned the west side of State Street
and his main barn was on the west side of State, then a mere road
to City Creek Canyon, and he had another barn. President Grant
says, with a lamb at the top of it, on account of which they called
the building the “lamb barn.” That was surrounded, as was the
barn on the west, with the orchards and gardens of Brigham
Young.

It was not until after I was married in 1 887 that the high cobble
wall which ran from the east side of the Eagle Gate was removed.
It had a doorway for pedestrians not far north of South Temple,
which led to the Eighteenth Ward Meetinghouse generally called
“Brigham Young’s Meetinghouse.” When the wards of the city
were first laid off, there were only nineteen and the Eighteenth
Ward included everything east of Main and north of South Tem-
ple. Later, the Twentieth Ward was organized and I think I
remember when the Twenty-first Ward was organized. It included
everything to the east, including what is now the popular Federal
Heights section, but at that time was nothing but a dry barren waste
with maybe a spring of sufficient size to furnish some water for
two or more slaughterhouses, and the now rich and choice section
was then known as “Slaughterville.”

The wall around Temple Square was the same as it is now
except that it was not plastered and there was a solid wall around
the entire block with entrances on the four sides only large enough
for a vehicle. The opening was greatly enlarged on the south side
in about 1875. A railroad track was laid from the depot up South
Temple to the Temple Grounds for the purpose of delivering rock
there from Little Cottonwood Canyon, and that made it necessary
to greatly enlarge the entrance. Prior to that time the large stones,
many of them huge, were all transported chiefly by ox team.

Chapter 2

Brigham Young partly constructed a canal from Little Cottonwood
Canyon, which ran through my farm in Cottonwood. A small
portion of that canal as they left it still exists at the extreme north
where there is a number of cottonwood trees, now not so very far
from Highland Drive. It was intended to transport the rock by
water. Whether President Young had in mind using the canal for
irrigating purposes or not, I do not know.

The property south on both sides of Main from South Temple
Street, as I remember it, was residential except that at Third South
and Main there was a two-story building, which Dan Clift had
erected. The upstairs was used as a dance hall and court room. I
remember attending an important trial there. I think it was that of
a notorious horse thief, but 1 do not remember the name. Bill
Hickman was the principle horse thief in this section of the
territory, with his headquarters in the mouth of Bingham Canyon.
There were practically no farms west of the Jordan River and he
and the Cottons, with whom he was associated, could ride the
range with their branding irons with a good deal of freedom, as
was done elsewhere in the territory.

At the northeast corner of Second South and West Temple
were the California Corrals. Quite a large tract was enclosed with
very substantial poles. As I remember, there were stables con-
nected with it. About all I remember was that in the fall of the year,
those who had horses and catde running at large (as a good many
did) on the range west of the Jordan River would agree on a time
to ride the range and gather up the horses at one time and the
cattle at another. They would be brought into the corral and there
each could pick out his young stock and brand it and return it to
the range if he wanted. It was quite an exciting scene when they
would lasso horses that had never been handled. There were many
cowboys in those days who enjoyed showing how they could ride
wild horses. It was quite an accomplishment and a very useful one,
because horses raised on the open range were never handled and,
when old enough to ride, were hard to break. That characterized
most of the young horses. 07

57 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. See N. Keith Roberts and B. Delworth
Gardner, “Livestock and the Public Lands,” Utah Historical Quarterly 32 (1964): 285-
300.

Young Mormon

I have little recollection of what stood south of the old Salt
Lake House Hotel, which was near the center of the block at about
where the Tribune Building is now, except the Hussey (First
National) Bank Building, which was the first four-story building in
the city. I remember about the time it was erected they had a large
lump of extremely rich gold ore said to be worth thousands of
dollars that attracted a great deal of attention.

The old Salt Lake House was the leading hotel and was then
the headquarters and office of the Overland Stage. One of the
most thrilling experiences of my boyhood was to witness the
four-horse stage swinging as it did from side to side and front and
back, with the driver high up in front with his whip, which he could
crack over and on the lead team if he wanted to, dashing down
Main Street from the north to the Salt Lake House. I think it gave
the driver a thrill, because it was one of the most exciting sights of
the time. It was not so unlike our going to see the trains come into
the Utah Central Railroad Station in the early days.

The principle courtroom of the United States court was in the
Faust Livery Stable in the middle of the block, where the Wilson
Hotel now stands on the south side of Second South between Main
and State. It was a two-story structure with the entrance to the
upstairs on the outside— just a stairway hung to the west wall of the
building— with the principal livery stable of the city below and the
courtroom above. I suppose it was also used for dances and
gatherings of different kinds. H. J. “Doc” Faust was an interesting
pioneer character and livery stables in those days were very impor-
tant business places. 5 "

The courthouse in which the county offices were and business
was transacted was located at Second South and Second West and
stood until a recent date, although for a long time it ceased to be
used as such when the present City and County Building was
erected.

Outside of ward meeting houses, which were used in those
early days for entertainments of all kinds, as well as for church
services, there were no public buildings excepting those that have

58 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. The original wooden stable burned in
1865 and was replaced with a stone building. Moyle most certainly remembered the
latter structure. See Journal History of the Church, 23 Nov. 1865, pp. 1, 3, MS, CLA.

Chapter 2

been named with the exception of Social Hall, which was located
on State where Motor (Social Hall) Avenue now is. That was used
in the early days for all kinds of entertainment— social and educa-
tional. Independence Hall, located on the south side of Third
South a short distance west of Main Street, was a well-known public
building used chiefly by non-Mormons as far as I remember for
public meetings and entertainments.

With the boom of 1889 and 1890, great changes took place.
The Mormon people generally regarded their homes as an inheri-
tance in Zion and it was against their high ideals, if not their belief,
to sell the same to non-Mormons. But the taxes were high and
prices were alluring and a real change took place in the attitude of
the Mormon people, who, however reluctant, parted with their old
homes. The most notable example that I remember was that of
Hamilton G. Park, a unique and interesting character, who owned
a lot (which means an acre and a quarter) located on the northeast
corner of Main and Second South, where a splendid, modern hotel
was erected. The old Park home was also surrounded by an
orchard and garden. Hamilton did some of his most serious
thinking in solving the problem as to whether he would take the
money of the promoters of the hotel and part with his inheritance,
but he did so and was advised to do it by Church leaders. l!l

Saints and the Lamanites

There were plenty of Indians around in the early days of the
city. An old Indian called Tom seemed to be the uncle of all the
Indian children. In the summertime he often came to our house,
and when I was very small, he greatly frightened me. I perfectly
well recall running from him crying, and him saying to my mother,
“Me his uncle. Tell him.” He claimed that distinction because my
grandfather was the adopted father of his nephew and niece. He
was a local Indian of some small prominence who often brought
with him to our home a number of other Indians, maybe ten,
twelve, or as many as fifteen who tied their horses to the old pole
fence around our lot while they begged and went to town to see
the sights and make purchases. They threw their saddles and gear

59 Undated memorandum, Box 8, I'd 2.

Young Mormon

over our fence. They were not permitted to remain within the city
limits overnight.* 1 "

It was a common thing to see squaws begging or selling
something. I remember especially their selling sarvis (service)
berries, because I loved them so much. Those berries were really
fine, were quite abundant, and squaws came to the door loaded
with them. I do not think they grow much below six thousand feet
elevation. I never missed getting them when they were in reach,
but they seem to be scarce now. In Big Cottonwood Canyon they
grew most abundantly about five miles below Brighton. They were
as large as good-sized currants, and a very dark blue to purplish
color.

I remember that Tom often came to Mother saying he and his
friends were hungry and Mother would give them food, mostly
bread as 1 recall. That was a treat for them. They could camp at
the city limits and I have watched them cook over the campfire,
but I can only remember them cooking one thing, meat. Once it
looked like a large rabbit or young dog or lamb or something of
the kind. They say that the Utes even ate grasshoppers when they
were abundant and their other food scarce. They boiled the meat
in a big iron pot.

Indians, in their crude and simple native garb, were a common
sight both in our neighborhood and even on Main Street in those
days. At first they wore no clothes, but later they did. It was not
uncommon to see them dragging their tent poles tied to the backs
of their horses. Tom once came to our place with the poles so
attached to the horses. Their wickiups were frequently very crude,
the tops always badly smoked, and sometimes they were very old
and dilapidated. A camp of Indians on the suburbs always inter-
ested me. When traveling they did not all go together hut in
groups, maybe families. Camping places were generally across the
Jordan or in the sagebrush above the city on the north, at least
where I saw them. I have seen them on what is now Capitol Hill
so they could be near businesses, as well as begging grounds.

60 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 4. See J. Cecil Alter, “The Mormons and
the Indians: News Items and Editorials from the Mormon Press,” Utah Historical Quar-
terly 12 (1944); 49-69; Grant J. Harr, “Saint and Savage: Mormons and the Indians in
Utah, 1846-1900,” Pli.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1967.

Chapter 2

Laziness was a characteristic of the Indians, especially with the
bucks. The squaws did the work that was done, got the wood and
water, made the fires, and did the cooking. They generally had
dogs that would help catch rabbits and earn their own living, unless
the Indians were very fortunate. The dogs, too, were generally of
the lean and hungry-looking type. Although their horses were
small, the bucks never walked, though the squaws did.

My Grandfather Wood adopted two Indian children, a boy and
a girl. The girl married a white man by the name of Blood Beach.
I think they reared a family in southern Utah. I have no recollection
at all about whom the boy married, but it does run in my mind
that he was reared to manhood. Grandfather’s record shows he
also adopted Charles W. Pierson, an English boy, who became his
scribe and schoolteacher. Pierson taught one winter in the Fif-
teenth Ward and later became a lawyer and the right-of-way
attorney for the Bamberger Interurban Railroad. 1 think he was
employed by that company until his death. I am quite sure Grand-
father adopted others, but I do not remember who. 1 ' 1

Growing Up in the Fifteenth Ward

It was not uncommon in the summer for boats to be kept at
First South just east of Seventh West, and from there you could
boat all the way down the Jordan River. When the canals were dug
to the north from the west side of the city, I often skated on the
canal to Hot Spring Lake. A favorite place for skating was south
of South Temple and west of Seventh West for several blocks. We
also hunted ducks in the sloughs from there to the Jordan. When
we were old enough, we swam in the Jordan about where First
South would cross the river, but the Jordan was very treacherous
and drownings occasionally occurred. The old white bridge at
North Temple was the only bridge over the river immediately west
of the city until I was quite a lad. It was a popular rendezvous for
venturesome kids who disregarded the wishes and instructions of
their parents. One of the biggest achievements for a boy was to

h l Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 4. For an interesting discussion of adop-
tion among the Mormons, see Gordon Irving, “The Law of Adoption: One Phase of
the Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation, 1830-1900,” Brigham Young
University Studies 14 (Spring 1973): 291-314.

Young Mormon

swim across the Jordan, and one of the worst pranks of boyhood
was to hide the boys’ clothes while they swam, or worse, to tie them
in hard knots often wetting the shirts so the knot could not be
untied. I cannot think boys are so mean nowadays.

My mother was a peace-loving woman and would punish me
for fighting. I hated it also, being very diffident, but I did not
realize my strength and boys a little older and smaller licked me
for a short time. I soon found myself, however, and then how I
surprised some of them, and how the bantams suddenly found it
convenient to leave me completely alone. I had one real disadvan-
tage, though, because I was subject to severe nose bleeding from
no apparent cause, even when I slept. And when I fought, my nose
bled profusely as soon as it was disturbed, and it was hard to stop.
I long since outgrew it, but not when I was in the fighting business.

I loved all kinds of physical sports and nothing better than ball
and skating. When I was about ten Father bought my first store
skates for Christmas. They had a screw at the heel about an inch
long intended to be screwed into the heel of the shoe to hold the
skates in place, but neither Father nor I knew how to operate it,
so he cut the screw quite short and then the straps would not hold
the skates in place and I had many bad falls trying to skate on those
skates.

We skated in winter on various ponds, particularly one imme-
diately south of Third South between Fifth and Sixth West and
swam there in the summer. A favorite swimming and fishing place
was just west of Second South which ended between Sixth and
Seventh West. It was there that I and a number of others were
baptized. It was a favorite place for such ordinances. I think we
called it Jim Brown’s Hole. I also fished there often. During the
high-water season in the spring, boats were freely used there and
north and west to the Jordan. My favorite playground as a child
was on Sixth West between First and Second South in front of
Edward Ashton’s. There we played marbles, ball, and all the games
common to the time. One of the favorite amusements was to get
a nice long willow such as grew on the bottoms just below and put
a dab of clay on the end and throw it about twenty rods when
people were not looking. I have hit the objective when it was the
new hat of some good neighbor, though I never admitted it before.

Chapter 2

The Ashton boys, Ed, Jed, and Brig, were my earliest chums; Brig
was just my age. He and I alternated playing and fighting.

We had two cows and my riding pony, all of which I cared for.
We raised all our fruit, potatoes, vegetables, and generally about
enough corn for our pigs, and fodder with hay for our cows. I
abominated hoeing and weeding, because it kept me from the
Ashtons. Being the oldest, I also had to mind the babies, churn,
chop wood, and do all the chores. Oh, how burdensome but
unavoidable it was. And how many switchings Mother gave me for
neglect and never when I did not deserve them.

Competing with the Ashton boys as favorite companions were
Joe Bywater and John Lloyd. Joe’s father was a great preacher. His
family prayers were long, eloquent, and impressive in sound, but
too long to impress favorably the boys who wanted to get out to
play after breakfast as well as after supper. Subsequently, none of
the Bywater boys was noted for being prayerful.

At about twelve or thirteen I began to sow my wild oats. I
started by being out nights at the Utah Central Railroad Station,
where the roughs assembled. There Joe and John and I got
cigarettes and smoked, and I began my downward career. 1 soon
after joined the wayward in going swimming on Sundays without
a chaperon. We played cards for playthings, pocket knives, and
some of the boys even played for money. Soon after 1 quit the more
quiet boys of the Fifteenth Ward and Sixth West for the sons of
more important families— Tom Tennant, Charley Barnum, Fred
Jones, and Hosea Burton. They were rapidly becoming real sports,
and when 1 was about fourteen, we got drunk in the saloon at Third
West and First South on the northeast corner. I went to a party in
the ward house in that condition, which shocked the natives and
was a terrible blow to my father who said he would rather follow
me to the grave than have me pursue that course. Oh, how thirsty
I was the next morning. I played the truant and ran away from
school to see the races that were several miles away over thejordan
beyond Third or Fourth South. I made fun of the boys who acted
as deacons and so on.

This continued until I was in my fifteenth year, when Bishop
Joseph Pollard, in a most authoritative and impressive way, said to
me, “I want you to be a deacon.” I was almost stunned with
78 surprise, indeed bewildered, but there was in me as if by instinct

Young Mormon

and certainly by training the conception that the bishop had a right
to demand my services and it was my duty to respond. I put him
off, saying I would let him know. The more I thought of it the more
I felt it my duty to yield, but how could I face the boys? I loved and
respected my parents and I knew they would be immensely
pleased, so finally I concluded to accept the call. I gradually broke
away from the roughs, and so devoted myself to the duties of
deacon that the bishop said I was the best in the ward. We cleaned
out the meetinghouse, swept, mopped and dusted, filled the
coal-oil lamps, trimmed the wicks, made the fire, did all the
janitorial work, and put the house in order generally, and looked
after the door and entrance. In those days, everybody found their
seats unaided. We performed no spiritual duty and received no
special spiritual instruction or training, and there was no organi-
zation or quorum of deacons so far as I can recall. We merely took
our turns cleaning the meetinghouse and had it to do frequently.
I was very conscientious about it, and never thereafter allowed
myself to be wayward or irreligious. 1 then acted as a ward teacher
travelling with an older man, and at sixteen I had my endowments
in the old Endowment House. Then at seventeen I was ordained
a seventy at the home of James Barlow by James Cummings who
was president, and was admitted as a member of the second
quorum. 1 ’

John Smith, who gave me my patriarchal blessing, forecast my
future life in a notable, prophetic way, and I wholeheartedly
believe he was inspired of the Lord in the giving of that blessing.
I have felt that distinctly from the first, and claimed it of the Lord
as a right if I lived worthily of it. Patriarch Smith, whom I believe
enjoyed a large degree of divine inspiration when functioning in
his office, was another marked example of a mixture of the good
and bad, success and failure, divine guidance and error in the same
individual. In spite of the Word of Wisdom, he so loved liquor and
tobacco that he violated that law in an almost flagrant way. That
was the opinion of his neighbors and many of those who knew him
well. My wife, for example, was reared within a half block of his
home. His family too was not a model or even fair representative
of a Mormon family religiously. They paid little attention to

62 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2.

Chapter 2

religious activities in the ward or Church, for the father was away
much of the time giving blessings. In fact, the members of the
family were such that no son (though he had several) was thought
worthy to be his successor. As I remember, the Church had to wait
some time for his grandson to be old enough or fit for the duties
of the office. Consequently, the enjoyment of the right ended there
in that family, at least for the present . 63

John Smith gave me my blessing in the living room of his
modest adobe home on the corner of Third South and First West.
His daughter wrote it down in longhand. He was some time— per-
haps a half hour or more— giving it. He walked up and down and
around the room. He spoke very deliberately and paused at times
as if waiting for further inspiration. I observed the color of tobacco
very distinctly on his heavy mustache and beard near his mouth.
He was gray and distinctly patriarchal in appearance, and looked
the part he performed . 1 ’ 1

Life in the Commonwealth

When the Mutual Improvement Associations were organized,

I became a member, and though diffident forced myself to take
part and to become active. I think I was secretary of all events when
Tom Hunn was made president. I was one of his counselors and
later became president, working successfully to bring into the
association some of the wild and wayward. I was also an active
teacher in Sunday School and for a considerable time secretary of
the school under Thomas C. Griggs, whom I respected very greatly.
At fourteen, being a large and strong boy, I was put to work on
the Temple Block as a stonecutter. I worked all summer doing
heavy, rough work. I was paid by the piece, and made good wages,
all of which was turned over to Father. Our pay was in tithing
orders and very little cash which always went for flour, meat, and
potatoes. But you generally had to wait a long time to get meat or
anything very desirable. To get meat we would go early in the
morning before work, which began in those days at seven, quitting

63 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4. See Joseph Fielding Smith, Essen-
tials in Church History, 24th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1971), pp. 581-82.

64 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4. See Irene M. Bates and E. Gary
Smith, Lost Legacy: The Mormon Office of Presiding Patriarch (Urbana: University of Illi-
nois Press, 1996), pp. 107-18.

Young Mormon

at six. I remember we had quite a time getting bran for the cows
and wheat for the chickens. It was desirable to play up to the clerk,
old Ben Hampton; the men said a bottle of whiskey went a long
way with him. The Dixie people raised grapes and made wine, paid
tithing with it, and then we could get some of the wine from the
tithing office. That was considered all right if used temperately,
and neither was it sinful to drink Margett’s and Eddie’s Beer which
would and did intoxicate. 1 ”

Tithing was paid in kind; for example, the Dixie wine was
brought all the way to the Tithing Office in Salt Lake City.
Anything a man produced, whether hay or grain or vegetables, was
hauled to the Tithing Yards and stored there. The Salt Lake
Tithing Office, storehouse, and hay yards were where the Hotel
Utah is now with the stockyards and corrals nearby. In each city or
county seat there were smaller but similar accommodations for
handling tithing paid in kind. 1 *

Later, a little building was erected on the Tithing Grounds
where the stake headquarters operated a lot for the purpose of
handling and caring for the tithing. In the wintertime it was easily
identified by that little one-room structure and the stacks of hay
in the yard adjoining." 7

As a little boy I carried a tin bucket holding maybe a gallon of
flour to Brother Varney’s home where, as the representative of the
bishop, he had barrels, boxes, and bins in which were kept the
monthly fast donations of the members of the ward. These were
generally paid in some commodity which the poor could eat.
Mother paid our fast donation (as I think many did) in flour.

Men worked in those days ten hours a day with no transporta-
tion except shanks ponies [on foot]. Hence the day’s work was
longer by a half hour or more before and after hours. There were
no holidays except July the Fourth, Pioneer Day (July 24), Christ-
mas, and New Year’s Day. Work was a daylight-to-dark affair much

65 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2.

Memorandum dated Feb. 1943, Box 9, fd 7. See Leonard J. Arrington and
Ralph W. Hansen, “Mormon Economic Organization: A Sheaf of Illustrative Docu-
ments,” Utah Historical Quarterly 28 (1960): 41-55.

67 Memorandum dated Feb. 1943, Box 9, fd 7. See Leonard J. Arrington “The
Mormon Tithing House: A Frontier Business Institution,” Business History Review 28
(Mar. 1954): 24-58.

Chapter 2

of the year, with no amusement but an occasional dance, concert,
or theater of some kind at night for most of the folks, with ball
playing, running, jumping, swimming, skating, wrestling, boxing,
horse racing, fighting, and so on for the boys, but not for the girls.
Such was life in Salt Lake City and elsewhere in Utah in the 1860s
and much so in the 1870s and 1880s. The reforms or luxuries of
short working hours, Saturday afternoons off, and frequent holi-
days and amusements were little-known or talked about. The
established habit of seeing a movie or being at a dance once a week
or much oftener was inconceivable, and yet we were as happy then
if not happier than now. 68

A ward, in those days, constituted a little social, religious, and
political commonwealth that provided for all the needs of the
society. The bishop and his counselors were the complete local
government. Block teachers, supplemented by the Relief Society
teachers, looked after every social, economic, and political need
of every member of the ward. They were the economic and social
guardians of the community, of which all members were of the
same religious and political faith. 69

I remember well when the first non-Mormon made his home
in the ward about a block away from our house. He was a modest,
quiet, good citizen— a miner who had sold his claims in the moun-
tains for sufficient to enable him to retire for life in a modest way. 70

If a person were sick or in need, he received assistance
promptly. There was no red tape or formalities. There were both
male and female block teachers on each block, and the bishop was
soon advised if there was more than ordinary neighborly help
needed. Even the school trustees operated in harmony with the
bishop in selecting the schoolteacher. The bishop also sponsored
the entertainments which consisted chiefly of dances, concerts,
and occasional lectures.

68 Memorandum dated Oct. 1943, Box 10, fd 3.

69 Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 2. See Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom, pp.

30-31.

70 Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 2. See Robert J. Dwyer, The Gentile Comes
to Utah: A Study in Religious and Social Conflict (1862-1890) (Washington, D.C.; Catho-
lic University of America Press, 1941). Moyle read Dwyer with great interest since he
had witnessed firsthand the subject of the book. See his copious reading notes in
Boxes 13-15.

Young Mormon

The actual city government consisted locally of a justice of the
peace and a constable who look charge when coercive measures
were needed. But the bishop was the most important individual in
this little commonwealth, and the ward and its territorial limits was
a real political entity, almost as complete as the little nations of
Europe in their spheres. The poor were kept in their own homes,
on a level not so far from that of their neighbors. Even the
ordinarily insane stayed home. 1 remember one who was chained
to a pole in his dooryard. 71

The knowledge of Brigham Young’s leadership in common-
wealth building has extended to every great nation of the world
and will stand as an ideal to be studied. But the simplicity of the
society of that day has so changed that a new social and economic
order is now demanded and the old ideals, however much to be
preserved so far as practical, must yield to the demands of our
present complicated social and economic conditions. To reason
otherwise would be like trying to go back to the means of trans-
portation that required three months to make the trip to the
Missouri River that is now made in a few hours.

If the authors of socialism or communism have advanced ideas
that will aid in the solution of vital problems in our social order,
they should not be ignored just because they are part of an
unpopular ideology. It is true that the essentials of man’s free
agency must be preserved, and likewise the rule of the majority,
for there is something of divinity in it. Every political advance
made to meet the needs of a higher social and political order
involved the surrender of freedom. The Constitution of the United
States, now honored by all the liberty-loving of the world, required
both men and colonies to surrender some elements of freedom.
Every law involves restraint and limitation of freedoms, especially
of the strong and in favor of the weak and peace-loving. To say
that we are being unwisely and unfairly deprived of our liberties
and property in meeting demands of present-day social and eco-
nomic reforms is only the repetition of the cry of the reactionary

71 Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 2. For an interesting study of life in early
Utah, see Nels Anderson, Desert Saints: The Mormon Frontier in Utah (Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1942), pp. 83-446. In connection with the function of the bishop
and the ward in the community, see especially ibid., pp. 334-60.

Chapter 2

against every social and economic advance of society and govern-
ment. It is true there is danger in overdoing it and it should be
remembered always that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance,
but there are merits on both sides of the great issues of life, and
the happy medium course should prevail so as to let progress come
naturally as man is able to receive it and digest it. Too much of
most anything at a time should be avoided. But we might just as
well try to dam the Mississippi all at once and in one place as to
try to dam the course of progress because it involves a loss of
freedoms heretofore enjoyed. That is what the reactionary at-
tempts to do when he cries out against necessary socio-economic
changes. An equal error is made by the rash radical who would
attempt to go too fast and too far at a time. 7 "

72 Undated memorandum. Box 9, fd 2. See additionally for the period of this
chapter the following: undated memoranda, Box 9, fd 1; Box 8, fd 1; Box 8, fd 8;
memorandum dated May 1943, Box 10, fd 1; memorandum dated Feb.-Apr. 1944,
Box 10, fd 6.

Chapter 3

MISSIONARY

Brother Brigham

I have a very clear remembrance of Brigham Young. He died in
1877, making me old enough and big enough to be one of the
bodyguards at his funeral. He gave me the impression of great
force and strength of character. That, however, is no doubt in-
fluenced some by other facts I learned from reading. When I
read as a young boy Tullidge’s history of Brigham Young, I was
thrilled as probably nothing I ever read before by his account of
the President’s treatment of Johnston’s Army (the Utah Expedi-
tion of 1857-58) when negotiations were on relative to the terms
upon which our people would permit the peaceful entry of that
army into the Salt Lake Valley. The Saints were poverty-stricken,
with nothing but a job lot of old guns of all kinds picked up here
and there. Their ammunition was largely of their own crude
making, the powder and bullets home-made by the simplest of
methods. 1

I was also impressed by the fact that when merchants, build-
ers, and farmers (and we had few other callings except laborers)
wanted to engage in something new, or to go east to make

1 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 3; James Henry Moyle Collection, Library-
Archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, hereinafter cited as CLA. All references hereinafter to box and folder (fd)
are for items from this collection. See Edward W. Tullidge, Life of Brigham Young; or,
Utah and Her Founders, 2d ed. (New York: Tullidge & Crandall, 1877), pp. 242-96.

Chapter 3

purchases, or to move out into new or underdeveloped sections,
they would call on “Brother Brigham,” as he was familiarly called,
for advice. He seemed to be the all-out leader. He was a father
to all, and exercised the privileges of a real father to all in that
respect. My father-in-law, Henry Dinwoodey, became a thrifty and
successful businessman, and knowing that Brother Brigham was
in need of money for some enterprise and not wanting to be
asked to invest in it, called on him and said, “Brother Brigham,

I am badly in need of more money.” In this way he could keep
in Brigham’s good graces without having to invest his money . 2

Many of the brethren went to brother hrigham for advice
about getting married, not only as to women but how they would
be able to build and take care of a home, where they should locate,
and so on. With all of these things, not to mention the big problems
of community life and empire-building, I was impressed with the
idea that Brigham Young was all but a king as well as great high
priest, prophet, and father to his people whom he called in from
the nations of the world . 3

The Gathering

I shall never forget the wretched poverty of the immigrants
as they made their fire beside their covered wagons and cooked
their meals in a pot and skillet and frying pan. Some of them
remained in the campgrounds for a considerable time. Most of
them were taken in by friends or relatives, but some remained
for weeks before they were located in more or less remote sec-
tions of the territory. Some made homes on the hillside in dug-
outs where they lived for years. Half of the houses or more were
underground, with mother earth for walls and roof. That was not
such an uncommon sight in Salt Lake City and the settlements
in the country. The makeshift homes on the bad or poor lands
near the city were sometimes much like those I saw on the

2 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 3. For Henry Dinwoodey’s autobiography,
see Gene A. Sessions, ed., “Biographies and Reminiscences from the James Henry
Moyle Collection,” unpublished manuscript, 1974, CLA, sec. 12.

3 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 3. Recent and notable works on the life of
Brigham Young are Leonard J. Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses (New York:
Knopf, 1985), and Newell G. Bringhurst, Brigham Young and the Expanding American
Frontier (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1986).

Missionary

riverside in New York City and other cities during the Great
Depression of the 1930s where homes were made of outcast
materials which could be obtained for little or nothing. But some
of our finest families started in dugouts and makeshift homes of
the poorest character, and on what was then considered very
poor lands. The Federal Heights area of Salt Lake City was called
Butcherville (or Slaughterville) when I was a young man due to
its having a spring or two enough to furnish water for one or
two primitively crude and uninspected slaughterhouses. 1 well
remember when 1 first ■visited the upper part of the city. It must
have been about 1868 or possibly earlier. There was, as 1 remem-
ber, nothing but sagebrush east of Tenth East and only scattered
homes. That was all due to lack of water. The poor Scandinavians
came in considerable numbers and they were often so frugal that
any kind of a home that was their own or that did not require
rent payments was sufficient. Their frugality, thrift, and industry,
however, soon made comfortable homes where it was possible,
and they tried even where it was not possible. Their coming
constituted a real feature of the time. 1

I shall never forget the poor Saints camped there who had
no relatives or friends who would take them in, particularly the
Scandinavians, who seemed to be the poorest. Their apparently
extreme poverty appealed to my young soul most pathetically. I
was just big enough to be far from home, and 1 wanted to help
some of them, especially one woman I remember who seemed
to have no man to help her. She seemed to me wretched, but
went about undaunted. She could not speak English. I shall never
forget the sight. When she made the fire to cook her meal I
sought to help her find sticks of wood and was delighted to think
I could be of service to her. She was tall and very thin and her
clothes harmonized with her (I think) wooden shoes, which were
not so uncommon with them. I watched the completing of the

4 Memorandum dated Jan. 1945, Box 12, fd 1. See William Mulder, “Mormon-
ism’s ‘Gathering’: An American Doctrine with a Difference,” Church History 23 (Sept.
1954): 3-19; Mulder, “Through Immigrant Eyes: Utah History at the Grass Roots,”

Utah Historical Quarterly 22 (1954): 41-55; Mulder, “Mormons from Scandinavia, 1850-
1900: A Shepherded Migration,” Pacific Historical Review 23 (Aug. 1954): 227-46; Mul-
der, Homeward to Zion: The Mormon Migration from Scandinavia (Minneapolis: Univer-
sity of Minnesota Press, 1957).

Chapter 3

cooking and eating, visiting many of a similar character, for they
were scattered over the large yard.'

The number gradually decreased until there were very few,
and then none until the next train or company arrived. I watched
the Scandinavians especially, for they had less friends with favor-
able surroundings than the English, Welsh, or Scots, who so largely
predominated then in Utah. 1 ’

I followed families that started in a dugout on the hillside, or
in the suburbs of the city in homes made not of the dignified rough
logs, but of what could be picked up— cheap boards, coal oil cans,
any old thing that would afford some shelter. The same occurred
on sagebrush land they found west of the Jordan. The improve-
ment was gradually but persistently made in these dugouts and
tin-can surroundings until they had a comfortable home and more
frequently a farm with it. They were the personification of industry
and thrift, and the wooden-shoed, poverty-stricken Scandinavians
(for they were the best example of the class) were the fathers of
some of our distinguished lawyers, doctors, educators, and finan-
ciers. The informed English-speaking regarded them as inferior,
but their stock gradually grew in value until now and for some time
these rough diamonds are not discounted at all but on the contrary
by many (including myself) are regarded as being among the very
best. I believe they are of the royal blood of Israel.'

Green Young Man from the Mountains

That experience on the Zion end of the gathering was only
one of many that led me to be willing to make any sacrifice for the
Gospel. When I was eighteen, Father was asked if I could go on a
mission. He did not want me taken out of school, so it was
postponed until I was twenty.* So I left for my mission to North
Carolina on about the first of July, 1879. I remember I was in St.

5 Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 1. See William Mulder, “Utah’s Ugly Duck-
lings: A Profile of the Scandinavian Immigrant,” Utah Historical Quarterly 23 (1955):
233-59. See also undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2.

6 Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 1. See Philip A. M. Taylor, “Why Did Brit-
ish Mormons Emigrate?” Utah Historical Quarterly 22 (1954): 249-70.

7 Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 1. See Richard L. Jensen, “The Friendly In-
vasion: Scandinavian Immigrants ...,” Ensign 4 (July 1974): 46-47.

8 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 2. Cross-reference Moyle’s remembrances
of his mission and college days in these chapters with his diaries in Box 1 .

Missionary

Louis on the Fourth. We traveled over the Union Pacific to Denver,
which was then a comparatively small and young city. They were
grading the capitol grounds preparatory to the erection of the
State Capitol. The capitol site was far beyond the best section with
very few residences nearby. We then went to Pueblo, traveling over
the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe to Kansas City. The passenger
cars then had little protection for passengers outside of a railing
on the outer side of the entrance, and when one went from one
car to another, he took some chances because of the rough
roadbed and rail connections and the light weight of the cars.' 1

Eastern Colorado and western Kansas were then very much of
a desert wilderness except for the grass and a few trees along the
streams. Many of the passengers were dressed in typical cowboy
and ranch styles, but not so much like the more orderly cowboy
suits of today. Many of them wore big, broadbrim hats. I remember
one rough-looking, villainous character with a long, black mus-
tache and pistols entered the train in Kansas, and I was sure he
was an outlaw.

At Kansas City I was greatly surprised to see trains frequently
coming and going. I think there were only four or five tracks beside
a big and rickety lumber station. 1 was quite overawed by the
number of trains and the rushing, pushy crowd.

St. Louis was the first sight of a city of any consequence. While
there I found my Grandmother Moyle’s sister who was married to
a man named Edward Boone. She had quite a family, although I
remember only three or four boys who were employed in deliver-
ing ice and working in an ice plant. Mrs. Boone was of the same
heavyset type as Grandmother Moyle. She was a very wholesome-
looking and substantial Englishwoman.

At that time the bridge over the Mississippi at St. Louis was
considered to be a real wonder of the world. It was the first span
said to be a mile long. The next most interesting and notable sight
to us from the Great American Desert was Shaw’s Gardens, which
was then quite a distance from the city and we had to travel out to
it in an electric street car. This was also a marvel. There were six
of us, all green, young men from the mountains. I think I was the

9 Memorandum dated Feb. 1933, Box 9, fd 3. See Jack Goodman, “Mid-Century
Crossing by Rail,” Utah Historical Quarterly 37 (Winter 1969): 135-43.

Chapter 3

youngest of the party though in charge of the little group. We
marveled at the labyrinth made in the gardens of huge hedges,
which made it difficult to get in or get out once you were in. We
had never seen anything like it. The flowers, trees, and grounds
were all beautiful. To us it was a veritable paradise. 10

We traveled down the west bank of the Mississippi to a point
opposite Columbus, Tennessee. While still on the train, I was
reading when I supposed we were merely switching and then
standing in the station. I happened to look out and was astonished
to observe that we were on the water. The train, as was universal
those days in crossing anything like the Mississippi, was being
ferried across the stream. It gave me quite a sensation.

From there we went to Corinth, Mississippi, where we had
to remain overnight on account of lack of train connections. We
went to a hotel, but it was so hot and to us intolerably humid
that we asked permission to put our beds out in the hall where
we could get some ventilation. We suffered greatly with the heat
and humidity.

Charley Bliss, the boldest and rashest of the group, arranged
for a meeting in the courthouse and we scattered the news as well
as we could until we had quite a little gathering. Charley, who was
the least informed, had the most to say. In fact, he ranted so
recklessly that I finally had to ask him to quit, after I had repeatedly
pulled his coattails trying to caution him against rash statements.
Nevertheless, we thought our amateurish meeting was not a bad
beginning.

We traveled easterly for Chattanooga, Tennessee, and shortly
before we arrived I was again reading on the train and was so
interested that I had not observed that there was no one left in the
car. It was very warm and my window was up, and when I looked
out I observed people more or less excitedly pointing up and to
the south. I couldn’t think what was the matter because I could not
see anything of special interest, but when I went out I was informed
that the people from the low lands of the Mississippi Valley were
gazing at the biggest mountain they had ever seen. Mount Look-

10 Memorandum dated Feb. 1933, Box 9, fd 3. See Gene A. Sessions, ed., “A
View of James Henry Moyle: His Diaries and Letters,” unpublished manuscript, 1974,
CLA, pp. 1-2.

Missionary

out, which was probably five or six hundred feet above the level.
Used to the great Rockies, I thought this very amusing.

In Chattanooga we found the mission secretary at the head-
quarters, but not the president, John Morgan. Charley Bliss and
his companion, Benjamin Harker, father of Mrs. Elbert D.
Thomas, went into Alabama, and four of us went through eastern
Tennessee to Withville, Virginia, where we parted, two going to
Virginia, and myself and N. W. Taylor of Harrisville, Weber
County, going into North Carolina. Taylor was about twenty-six or
twenty-seven and had been born and partially reared in Surry
County, North Carolina, and had many relatives there. We were
met by two missionaries from the North Carolina Conference who
took us over to Mount Airie where we stopped at the hotel."

We had never had any experience with blacks and I was
anxious to treat them right and so I carefully referred to them as
“Negroes,” which was very offensive. They like to be called “col-
ored people.” IJ

We were soon introduced to the Saints who welcomed us
and were very hospitable. Henry G. Boyle, one of the most suc-
cessful of our missionaries, was a native, I think, of North Caro-
lina and a very interesting character and entertaining speaker.
He had an unlimited supply of good stories and jokes with which
he kept the audiences awake and preached the Gospel to them
between times. Boyle had baptized several hundred people in
Surry County and a portion of Stokes, and most of them had
moved to the southern part of Utah County, and I think particu-
larly Payson.

Jonas N. Beck, a man about my father’s age and hard of
hearing, of Newton, Cache County, and Alexander Spence of
Wellsville, Cache County, were the only other missionaries in the
conference. They had been out nearly two years. They labored with

11 Memorandum dated Feb. 1933, Box 9, fd 3. See Arthur M. Richardson and
Nicholas G. Morgan, Sr., The Life and Ministry of John Morgan (Salt Lake City: Nicholas
G. Morgan, Sr., Publisher, 1965), pp. 9 Iff, for the Morgan era of the Southern States
Mission.

12 Memorandum dated Feb. 1933, Box 9, fd 3. See an interesting account of
Moyle’s experience at an African-American camp meeting in Gene A. Sessions,

“Camp Meeting at Willowtree, 1881,” Journal of American Folklore 87 (Oct.-Nov. 1974):
361-64.

Chapter 3

us for three or four months, introducing and giving us a start. Then
they were released and I was made president of the conference.

I found that from the days of Joseph Smith missionaries had
been laboring part of the time in the vicinity of Surry County, but
so far as I could learn they had never labored outside of the
particular locality. George Grant, brother of Jedediah, was one of
the early missionaries. I was greatly surprised to find that no effort
had been made to open other fields of labor in North Carolina and
that nothing had been done in South Carolina. The excuse offered
was that there was plenty for two missionaries to do in the section
I called a “nest” of about twenty miles long and maybe ten to fifteen
miles wide. It was the habit of the missionaries to stay one night
in a home and it took them about a month to go around the
district, there being about that number of families who were
pleased to entertain them. We then traveled without purse or scrip
and had comparatively little trouble in getting our meals and a
place to sleep. 1 '

In Search of Henry Lindsay

After I had been out about six weeks, I pleaded with the older
missionaries to take me out into new sections of the state, and
finally Brother Beck said he would go with me. We had heard that
a man in Burke County named Lindsay was a member of the
Church, but we did not have his address or his full name, and we
started out with the determination to find him if we could.

Our first night out and after walking twelve or fifteen miles,
we found a comfortable resting place in the courthouse at Dobson,
the Surry County seat. We were permitted to preach in the
courthouse, so we circulated the word of our meeting as best we
could. Twenty-five or thirty orderly people came and at the con-
clusion of the meeting a man gave us a clipping out of a local
newspaper about the shooting of Joseph Standing in Georgia,
which was not far beyond the southwestern corner of North
Carolina which was on our direct line of advance. The effect of the

13 Memorandum dated Feb. 1933, Box 9, fd 3. Actually, it was Jedediah Grant
himself and his brother Joshua who established the Mormon base in Surry County in
1837-38 and again in 1839-42. See Gene A. Sessions, Mormon Thunder: A Documentary
History of Jedediah Morgan Grant (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1982), 10-31.

Missionary

news seemed to stir both of us tremendously and instead of
discouraging us made us more determined to go on and to keep
up our attempt to car ry the good work to western and southwest-
ern North Carolina. 14

The people we saw as we traveled were very poor. It was not
so long after the Civil War, and there were but few bridges and
many streams and rivers to ford. East of the Blue Ridge Mountains
there were very few horses and it was quite unusual to meet even
a horse team, or for that matter, any kind of vehicle, so that when
we came to rivers, we had to ford them, and did so both winter
and summer by wading and swimming.

A one-horse and a two-horse farm had very distinct meaning
with these people. While corn grew in abundance, hay was as
scarce as hen’s teeth. ¥07 many of the farms consequently had no
draft animals on them at all. Some of them would have an old horse
and the more fortunate, a cow used with the horse to do their work.
Sometimes there was a pair of oxen, but where they had one good
horse they were quite fortunate and were known as one-horse
farmers. Two-horse farmers were regarded with special respect,
and if they had more than two horses, they were getting into the
rich man’s class. The lands throughout the country were very hilly
and difficult to plough or was covered with dense timber. Cheap
land outside of the river bottoms with all kinds of fine hardwood
timber on it could be had for two or three dollars an acre, but the
soil was thin and where cultivated would soon wear out and wash
away in the rain. 1 ”

The poverty was so extreme in many cases that the people
seemed to have no hope of anything better. They seemed to make
the best of it, though, and when not suffering the pangs of hunger
or cold, they seemed very happy. That was especially true with the

14 Memorandum dated Feb. 1933, Box 9, fd 3. See John Nicholson, “Death of
Elder Joseph Standing,” in Preston Nibley, ed., Missionary Experiences (Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book Co., 1954), pp. 223-47; Ken Driggs, ‘“There is No Law in Georgia for
Mormons:’ The Joseph Standing Murder Case in 1879,” Georgia Historical Quarterly 73
(Winter 1989): 745-72; Gene A. Sessions, “Myth, Mormonism, and Murder in the
South,” South Atlantic Quarterly 75 (Spring 1976): 212-25.

15 Memorandum dated Feb. 1933, Box 9, fd 3. For contemporary descriptions
of the South during the period of Moyle’s stay, see M. L. Avery, Dixie After War
(1906); V. V. Clayton, While and Black (1899).

Chapter 3

blacks. It was frequently said that if they had a bushel of corn and
a slice of bacon, they were happy until it was gone. The poor blacks
(and most of them were poor) were a distinct class, though the
poor whites were often little better off if any.

On the hills that constituted the country generally, they were
fortunate if they could get more than ten or twelve bushels of
wheat to the acre. The soil would produce a fairly good crop of
corn and for a year or two a good crop of tobacco. After that, they
had to spend so much on fertilizer that the farmers realized very
little more than a scant living.

Our food was of the simplest kind, and we rarely ever had meat
of any kind, excepting pork, which was produced in great quanti-
ties. The young pigs were turned loose in the forest in the spring
and they lived on roots and the acorns, hickory nuts and chestnuts,
and such herbage as they could get. In the fall, they were generally
very thin but with a new crop of acorns and chestnuts they would
fatten. Then they were put in pens or small yards and their flesh
hardened on corn. It was not an uncommon thing for the hogs to
die from cholera. When a farmer had fat hogs and he found any
of them not eating, he would immediately kill and sell for fear
cholera would take them. There was no inspection and all that the
market called for was fat stuff, and thus cholera and pneumonia
were propagated.

There were, however, some articles of food that greatly re-
lieved the monotony. One was green string beans, which were
raised in abundance and lasted from early in the summer to late
in the fall. They were cooked with a little bacon and constituted
the most tasty and desirable food that we had, excepting chicken
that was also raised in considerable quantity. It was customary for
the people to give their preachers chicken, although a good many
of our Church members were too poor to indulge in that kind of
luxury; hence, their eggs went to market. Although our meals were
almost universally obtained at farms, we seldom had milk because
of the scarcity of cows.

We missionaries all enjoyed excellent health due probably to
our simple food and persistent exercise. We often chopped wood
and even did some hoeing to help out the good farmers who
helped us.

Our only clothing, during the greater part of the year, was a

Missionary

soft or straw hat, cotton duster, trousers, and a pair of shoes, with
a good supply of handkerchiefs that were kept around the neck in
place of a collar in the very hot weather. We did not even wear a
shirt, for if we did, it would seem not fit to be seen. We very often
had to do our washing in cold water. I frequently washed my
clothing in the streams of water and waited for them to dry.

From Dobson we traveled southwesterly along the lower foot-
hill country of the Blue Ridge and had quite an interesting expe-
rience at Wilkesboro, North Carolina, where I bore my first
testimony to the divinity of the Gospel and of the divine work of
Joseph Smith. I had said that 1 would not bear my testimony until
I actually did know, and so stated in the Fifteenth Ward meeting
where I spoke just before leaving for a mission. Brother Charles
W. Penrose was then a member of the Fifteenth Ward and spoke
after me. He said that 1 did have a testimony and did not realize
it. At Wilkesboro we spoke in a little log school-house, not more
than twelve by fifteen feet, with nothing but rude logs roughly
chinked with no floor and no windows excepting wooden shutters.
The benches consisted of the roughest and cheapest kind. We
possibly had ten or twelve people present. I was literally forced to
bear my testimony. I could not resist the impulse to do so and thus
I found myself doing it apparently against my will.

In the adjoining county seat, Lenoir, we were unable to hold
a meeting, so we walked on to the county seat of Burke County at
Morganton, one of the oldest cities in North Carolina. It had a
population of about three or four thousand and possibly more and
was the big city of western North Carolina. There was no industry
in the state then. Raleigh as I remember had about 15,000 people
in it. Wilmington, on the coast, was the only larger city. There was
but one railroad in western North Carolina and that ran from the
east through Morganton to Asheville. We succeeded in getting a
meeting in the county courthouse at Morganton. We were inter-
viewed at the close of the meeting by a newspaperman from whom
we learned that Henry Lindsay lived up the Catawba River about
twenty miles, a short distance from Bridgewater. We experienced
some hostility but no resistance.

Ministry Along the Catawba

The next day we walked to Bridgewater where we ferried

across the river in a little boat and then walked up the river bottom
to the home of Henry Lindsay. This was to become our radiating
point in that part of the country. He was a tall, dignified, and
unusually intelligent man for that time and locality. Serving as
correspondent for the paper whose reporter had interviewed us
in Morganton, he was literate and well-informed. His wife was a
very nice, motherly lady by whom he had a number of children.
He had previously married and had one son of his deceased wife.
This boy spent most of his time away from home and had lived a
wild life. We were welcomed by the family and particularly by
Brother Lindsay who had seen better days. I think he was a
merchant but had failed in business and had taken up farming. He
was a tenant but occupied a better home than a good many of the
people. Paint was not in very common use at the time and his home
as I remember needed painting very badly. Notwithstanding this
and their big family of young children and their very limited
resources, they were always ready to share what they did have with
the missionaries.

Henry Lindsay told an interesting story. George Teasdale and
John R. Winder had been missionaries in Tennessee. They were
called the “long and short of Mormonism” because Brother Teas-
dale, who later became an apostle, was very tall, and John Winder,
as he was called, was very short. Brother Lindsay related that he
had seen a tall, dark-complexioned man and a smaller one in a
dream coming to his house, and when he saw these two mission-
aries, he recognized them as the men he had seen in the dream
and was readily converted to Mormonism and was baptized. The
missionaries remained in that part of the country only a few weeks,
then they moved on to Surry County, and Brother Lindsay related
that he had not seen a member of the Church since. While his faith
was still clear, there was some slight evidence of embarrassment
in participating in carrying on our Mormon propaganda, but his
faith was sufficient and he stayed with us, or more correctly, we
stayed and lived with him whatever his embarrassment might have
been. The result was that I finally baptized his wife and all of his
children, including his oldest son Millard. He also had a daughter
who subsequently became the wife of Bishop Edward Ashton of
the old Fifteenth Ward. There were two other daughters who
subsequently married in Salt Lake City, and a son named Brigham,

Missionary

a real lump of a youngster who had been born after the father had
joined the Church.

We spent about six weeks on that trip and then returned to
Surry. Shortly thereafter Brothers Beck and Spence went home,
leaving the two new missionaries alone, but we thought we could
get along all right.

I well remember planning a trip to go to Winston-Salem and
from there follow the railroad westward to Brother Lindsay’s. Both
my companion and I were practically out of money, but in the last
home we stayed at, a widow gave me seven dollars, which was
remarkable. I never needed on my entire mission as I did for that
trip and the seven dollars (with the little other we had) financed
us on that long trip through a section of country that was un-
friendly and more inhospitable than any other I traveled through
on my mission.

At Salisbury, I learned of a family of Moyles at Gold Hill, so
we went there and found a very nice family of my own name from
Cornwall, England, the country in which Father and their fathers
were born. They had been attracted to Gold Hill originally because
of gold mining there. The widow and her children were all rather
superior in appearance and otherwise to those surrounding them.
In 1924, when in Washington at the death of President Wilson, I
discovered in the papers that one of a little group of cadets who
were guarding the body of President Wilson was a very fine and
attractive young man named Moyle. He proved to be one of these
Gold Hill Moyles. 16

We were unable to hold a meeting in Winston or anywhere on
the trip to Salisbury, and we had to go to a hotel to get a bed. That
was the only trip while on my mission that I rode on a railroad
train and there was no other public means of travel in that part of
the country. All my traveling except that was on foot. I kept a
record of it and it ran into the thousands of miles.

1 shall never forget one day we traveled on a muddy, slippery
road in a continuous rain. James A. Barlow, my old schoolmate,
was my companion. One had an oilcloth coat and the other an
umbrella and the rain went through both. I never sang very much,

,r ’ Memorandum dated Feb. 1933, Box 9, fd 3. See Sessions, “View of James
Henry Moyle,” pp. 4-6.

Chapter 3

but we must have sung our hymns dozens of times during the day.
Sometimes when it was very slippery and the rain very bad, we
would close ranks and both get under the umbrella with our arms
locked and frequently we literally skated over the red, sticky soil
of North Carolina. At night we had difficulty finding a resting
place. Finally a German farmer took us in, and the rain turned to
a cold snow during the night. The room was extremely cold. He
gave us a bed consisting of pillows and two feather beds, which
were not made for men as large as Brother Barlow and myself. He
was the taller and larger of the two so we had to lie spoon-fashion
to keep our feet covered. When we got tired and wanted a change,
we had to notify the other in order not to expose our feet. We were
happy, however, and undaunted and always ready to press on.
With the assistance of splendid companions, 1 led the way in
opening up new fields of labor to such an extent that when I left
the mission, there were thirteen Utah elders in the North Carolina
Conference where there never before had been more than two
permanently.

I baptized seventeen people in Burke County, the Lindsay
family and Jasper Wise, a neighbor who lived two or three miles
away and the father of a family. I also baptized William Park who
had a good farm on the Catawba. He and more especially his wife
were of comparatively well-to-do families. We also baptized Sister
Park’s sister and her husband, a young couple with two or three
children. The Parks moved to Rigby, Idaho, and the other family
moved to Oregon.

A Wealth of Experience

We made repeated trips from Surry County to Burke County
and preached wherever opportunity presented itself. We had
many unusual experiences, one of which I will relate. In Wilkes
County we were unsuccessful in finding a place to stay. It was dark
and about nine o’clock. Just as we were commencing to feel
somewhat hopeless, we saw a light in the distance and moved in
that direction. As we approached it, a man drove up in his buggy.
He proved to be a Major Hampton, a member of the state
legislature who was very prominent and well-to-do in the locality.
After we told him who we were and what we wanted, he invited us
in. We were hungry as bears, and there was a spread on the table

Missionary

awaiting him. It was a splendid dinner and we helped him dispose
of it, and ever after he was our faithful friend, although he did not
express any desire to become a member of the Church. But he was
deeply impressed with our sincerity and message.

I had one strange experience with a dream. Four missionaries
were sent to me one time. I induced a friend to take me with his
team over the Blue Ridge Mountains to Withville to pick them up
and bring them back to Surry. On our way there at the ridge of
the mountains was the little village of Hillsville. We stopped over
night at the crude hotel there. In that hotel I had a dream in which
I learned that we had a branch of the Church in South Carolina. I
had the name of the place perfectly clear in my mind and for fear
that I would forget it, 1 got up and tried to light the lamp or candle
but could not find a match. I felt sure that I was awake, although
of that I am not absolutely certain, but at all events I concluded
that I was awake and that I could not forget the name of the place,
because I had been so anxious to go to South Carolina and had
appealed to President Morgan to let me do so. He had forbidden
it because of the danger, for it was generally understood that the
South Carolinians were an extremely hotheaded people who
would go to the greatest extremes to expose the Church. But even
with all of this, when I awoke in the morning I could not remember
the place in which I felt morally certain we were going to have a
branch of the Church, even though it was my understanding that
the Gospel had never been preached in South Carolina.

When we arrived in Withville and picked up these four mis-
sionaries, I discovered that President Morgan, in response to my
appeals, had sent them with the privilege of having two of them
go into South Carolina. So I sent two of the new elders, without
previous experience, to South Carolina where I was sure we were
going to organize a branch of the Church. Soon after these elders
had become accustomed to the new country, they started out and
spent several days traveling in South Carolina with no success or
apparent prospects for success, but they finally landed in a locality
where there was a Baptist church. They subsequently succeeded in
baptizing the preacher and a considerable number of his flock and
did organize a substantial branch in fulfillment of my dream.

I had one other dream while I was on my mission which was
worthy of note. I saw the buildings and more distinctly the tobacco

Chapter 3

barns on the Tar River in eastern North Carolina where there were
Latter-day Saints. I directed the mission to send two elders into
that locality and advised them of my dream and that they would
find and probably baptize members of the Church on the Tar
River. Elmer Johnson, a native of the Fifteenth Ward, was one of
the two missionaries. I do not remember the name of the other.
They succeeded in baptizing two people on the Tar River and thus
the work was opened up in the eastern part of the state where the
Gospel had never been preached before. All the work ever done
in the state previously was in the western part just east of the Blue
Ridge in Surry and Stokes Counties.

Another interesting experience was when we made a trip from
the home of the family of William Park to his son and daughter-
in-law who were living near Charlotte on the southern edge of
North Carolina. It was very warm weather and it took us several
days to get there. One day we walked about thirty miles in the
broiling sun and my feet were blistered, but we were happy and
succeeded in holding a little meeting in Charlotte and were
entertained by the young Park family. There was no door between
the room in which we slept and that of the Parks. They went to
bed long after we did and undoubtedly thought we were asleep,
and I could hear them whispering to each other. One said, “Did
you notice the light around his head as he was speaking?” They
joined the Church and moved to Rigby, but returned and after, I
understand, left the Church.

I had been in the mission field about a year when Charley
Brain from the Twentieth Ward, and his companion challenged
the preachers wherever they went to debate and had one accept.
They had only been out about six months, and the preacher had
been educated for the ministry and had made his living by preach-
ing for ten years or more. Charley was frightened so he asked, on
account of his inexperience, that I should take his place, I being
the “experienced” preacher. It was well up in the Blue Ridge at a
place not far from Mt. Pisgah in McDowell County. Charley had
been a stenographer and had had some experience in reporting
so he went prepared to take down what was said at the debate.
When we arrived at the schoolhouse where the debate was to take
place, a mob had gathered and we were informed that the preacher
was not going to meet us and that we were not going to hold the

100

Missionary

meeting. The schoolhouse was closed to us. It was in an open
clearing surrounded by timber with a country road running
nearby. There was quite a crowd present, so we rolled a pretty good
size stone to a convenient place and I stood on it and addressed
the crowd, calling their attention to the prediction of the Savior:
“They will drive you from synagogue to synagogue and from city
to city and will kill you.” It was a singular and unique experience
in which we won the sympathy and friendship of the crowd. 1 '

I had a close scrape with a mob at a little mountain school-
house typical of that part of the country and surrounded by heavy
timber. It was a small building with no glass or floor. It did have
wooden shutters and a door and some seats made of slabs with the
rough side down. We held a meeting there with only two men
present and about ten women and children. Brother Barlow was
speaking when we heard a great noise of men shouting and horses
galloping into the clearing around the schoolhouse. They suddenly
stopped riding but continued to yell and hoot. Apparently in great
folly, 1 got up and went out to them alone and walked up to the
leader who was in the front and faced him so that he could have
struck me had he tried. I looked him firmly in the face and said,
“We are holding a religious meeting here and you men must not
disturb us.” 1 said no more but steadily looked at him. He said
nothing and looked completely amazed. I then turned and was very
glad of the opportunity of returning. I had no sooner gotten into
the house and sat down when they yelled again, jumped on their
horses and away they went. Just as Brother Barlow finished speak-
ing and it was my turn, they returned with more noise than ever.
They tied their horses and came up to the door. I was speaking
near it with the benches facing the door. I immediately and with
great coolness and firmness asked the leader to come in and sit
down. He faced the little group, hesitated, and finally did. Then I
got the others in (probably eight or ten of them). The last one was
so drunk that he laid upon the floor and went to sleep. I continued
with my address, never taking my eyes off the leader. I preached
to him with great earnestness. At the conclusion of the meeting he
came up and offered his hand and said, “You are different from
what I supposed.” I do not remember the exact expression, but it

17 Memorandum dated Feb. 1933, Box 9, fd 3. See John 16:2.

101

Chapter 3

was to the effect that he admired us and wanted to be a friend. He
related to our friends afterwards that they were not drunk enough
at first to go through with their promise to the local Baptist deacon
that for a gallon of whiskey they would mob us, so they were
compelled to go back, drink more, and then come back deter-
mined to do it.

Before I arrived in North Carolina, Elders Beck and Spence
had been driven away from the frame schoolhouse where they had
been holding meetings in Stokes County. An armed mob told them
that if they returned they would be killed. Before they left the
mission, I sent out notices that we would hold a meeting at that
place. At the time there were not many present, because they
expected trouble. As we gathered at the meetingplace the mob
came out of the nearby wood. We had a member of the Church
named Sister McDaniels, whose husband was not a member but a
well-to-do and influential two-horse farmer, and another lady
member of the Church named Witte. Her husband, Lindsay, also
was not a member of the Church. He was a carpenter and rather
a substantial man also. The two women and their husbands were
present and the two men went out and met the mob. McDaniels,
not a religious man but a Bible believer, challenged the mob and
said if they disturbed us he would spend his farm if necessary to
prosecute them. They had quite an excited interview that finally
resulted in their leaving and our holding our meeting.

Epilogue to the Southern States

During the World War when I was Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury, 1 visited all of the South Atlantic Coast states in the
interest of Liberty Loan bonds and war saving stamps. For some
unknown reason I attracted more attention and interest in North
Carolina than anywhere else. In Asheville all the banks in western
North Carolina assembled and gave me a great banquet at the
leading hotel and paid all honor to me. At Winston-Salem, the big
tobacco center of the United States, we held a gathering in the
county courthouse which was crowded and in which I spoke with
unusual freedom. At the conclusion of the meeting, a great many
came forward and sought the opportunity of shaking hands. One
old man with a long, patriarchal beard without a smile looked into
my face and said solemnly and deliberately, “I never expected to

102

Missionary

see you again.” He proved to be Sister Witte’s husband. The crowd
was pressing on and I held on to his hand with my left hand, never
dreaming that he would leave me. The moment that the crowd had
passed on I turned to find him and he was gone. I told the lawyer
in charge how much I was interested in the man and how anxious
I was to see him. They sent men out to try to find him but they
could not. The next day I was entertained royally, driven around
the city and to every possible place where this man could have been
found, but I could learn nothing of him. He appeared and disap-
peared in such a mysterious way that I have almost wondered if it
was all real.

On my return to Washington, I wrote President Callis of the
Southern States Mission to ascertain whether there was such a
person in North Carolina, but he was unable to find him. As a
matter of fact, we had no elders in that locality. I have since made
further inquiry, but have been unable to find the man, much as I
would have appreciated doing so.'“

The greatest lesson I learned on that mission was that you
cannot find God by searching. It is the gift of God to know Him.
You can only prepare yourself for worthiness to know Him. It
comes by prayer, communion with Him, and living for it. It came
to me in the woods of North Carolina when I knelt with my
companion and alone in humble supplication for light, guidance,
and a knowledge of Him. He often was the only friend to whom
we could look or make an appeal. Religious mobs were rampant
and looking for Mormon elders, believing that they could render
service to their Christian God by ridding the country of our
presence, and thereby save their Christian neighbors from the
delusions of false prophets. It was there when in the adjoining state
of Georgia, Joseph Standing, another boy missionary, was mur-
dered because he would not heed the demand of such a mob to
cease preaching the Gospel of our Savior: faith, repentance, bap-
tism for the remission of sins, and leading a Christian and Godly
life. This was just before Elder William Berry and his companions
in another adjoining state, Tennessee, were likewise murdered in
cold blood. We never knew where we were going to eat and did

1 Memorandum dated Feb. 1933, Box 9, fd 3. See Sessions, “View of James
Henry Moyle,” pp. 40-41.

103

Chapter 3

not know where we would sleep at night. We were traveling among
people who were universally religious and naturally hospitable, but
we suffered from a prejudice and hatred that is now almost
inconceivable. Additionally, homes were scarce, woods abounded,
and travel was rare on the lonesome roads. We sometimes traveled
on foot in the broiling of the sun of North Carolina for thirty miles
in one day simply to find a single friend. Frequently, we made a
meal of wild strawberries, or of hazelnuts growing in the forest,
and once on uncooked field corn in the milky stage; one large ear
tasted good, but my stomach rebelled against the next."

Such were the conditions under which I labored for nearly
twenty-eight months, most of the time in the backwoods of the
Blue Ridge Mountains and the hill country east of them. Most of
the folks lived in crude log cabins, sometimes with neither glass
windows nor floors other than mother earth. We frequently
preached in schoolhouses with no windows, except wooden shut-
ters on hinges. There were no floors in them either and the
benches were made of slabs with the sawed side up and supported
only by strong posts fitted into auger holes in the slabs. We slept
in homes of good, intelligent people where a family of five or six
lived in a single room, with the chinking only sufficient to keep the
cold wind out. I was proud to baptize one such family of excellent
people who are now numbered among the finest citizens of Salem,
Oregon. Remember, 1879 was only fourteen years after the Civil
War and poverty prevailed, even among people who had been
slaveowners, and landholders. Tenants were barely able to pay rent
of any consequence. 1 met strong young men who worked for sixty
dollars a year with board. It was common for women to wash all
day, scrubbing with their hands, for twenty-five cents. There were
few horses in North Carolina, though on the west side of the Blue
Ridge they were more abundant. There was no bluegrass on the
east side and very little limestone, which was quite different from
Tennessee and Kentucky. That was one reason why we very rarely
rode horses. Railroads were also scarce, and I only rode once on
a train. It was the only one in western North Carolina, and many
people there had never seen an iron horse.

19 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 3. See Marshall Wingfield, “Tennessee’s
Mormon Massacre,” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 17 (Mar. 1958): 1-35.

104

Missionary

It was under such humble and sometimes dangerous condi-
tions that I was brought into such a spiritual status and nearness
to Deity that I received a testimony of the existence of God and
His Work that I believe nothing could remove. If it had not been
such I am not sure that I could have remained steadfast in the face
of political trials which I went through in the 1890s and early years
of this century. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, I would have been
governor of Utah and United States Senator but for the opposition
of Church leaders, and what we called “Church influence.” I deeply
regret to say that if I am to be frank, much of it still exists. I have
consistently stated my position on politics, and as with religion, I
never have and do not expect ever to deviate from that position.
This I say in the face of the fact that I am completely and perfectly
satisfied that divine inspiration continues to guide in all the
fundamentals of the great latter-day work of the Church of Jesus
Christ and that it will go on triumphantly. It, however, is now going
through its greatest test of endurance, greater than poverty, mob
violence, the burning of homes, the confiscating and robberies of
homes and all earthly possessions, and even the meeting and
suffering of death by the leaders and fathers, and greater than
being driven from civilization. The present test is that of wealth,
prosperity in material things, and perhaps the most dangerous of
all, popularity. 20

20 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 3.

105

Chapter 4

STUDENT

After returning from my mission, I went to Deseret University in
the spring. I then went to work on the Temple Block, and before
September 1 had saved $500 for law school. Father would do the
rest. But I had other problems to overcome. 1

The Legal Profession in Utah

Prominent young Mormons who had studied law in the East,
or at least who went east before 1882, were Alfales Young (Univer-
sity of Michigan), a son of Brigham who later left the Church;
LeGrand Young, son of Dr. Seymour B. Young and a nephew of
Brigham; 2 and Bruce Taylor, a son of President John Taylor. Bruce
also left the Church and moved to the Northwest. Zera Snow, son
of Judge Zerubbabel Snow, also left the Church and the territory
at about the same time Taylor did. Neither of them was still in Utah
by 1885, but I do not know when they left. Joseph L. Rawlins, son
of Bishop Joseph S. Rawlins of South Cottonwood, studied in the
East but not law, even though he became a practicing lawyer. He
also left the Church. Parley L. Williams was of Mormon parentage
but claimed never to have been baptized. He was always bitterly

2 Memorandum dated Mar. 1942, Box 9, fd 5. LeGrand Young was actually the
son of Joseph Young and the brother of Seymour B. Young.

107

Chapter 4

108

anti-Mormon in my time. LeGrand Young and Franklin S.
Richards were the only two active leading Mormon lawyers in Salt
Lake City in 1885. Consequently, both served as Church attorney.

Other Mormons practicing law in the city in 1885 were
Aurelius Miner, Scipio Africanus Kenner, and Sidney Darke.
Miner was not very active in his practice because he was a polyga-
mist and was thus disqualified. Kenner was a man of natural
brilliance. He had picked up law on the side somehow, and he also
did some newspaper work sometimes. He was clever and could
have gone further but he drank too much. Darke’s office was in
the rear of Swanner’s Jewelry Store on Main Street. He also picked
up the profession on the side, and like Kenner practiced chiefly in
the police court as well as probate and justice’s courts. The judges
there were often not even lawyers themselves.

Don Carlos Young, another of Brigham’s sons, was the only
Mormon I knew of going away to study a profession other than
law, except for Willard and Feramorz Young who went to the
military academies. West Point and Annapolis were privileges
reserved for the bluebloods. I was a Fifteenth Ward clodhopper
whose lowly status would not justify an attempt to receive an
appointment to one of the academies. Furthermore, an environ-
ment existed then so different from that of today that it is now
difficult to understand its negative influence on education. For
example, in response to my persistence in getting an education,
Bishop Pollard said to me, “Jimmy, you are a good boy, but these
educated men are damned rascals.”

My Revolutionary Action

On August 20, 1882, when I asked to be released from my stake
activities to go east to study law, Angus M. Cannon, president of
the Salt Lake Stake and brother of George Q. (the leading intellec-
tual of the Church), said to me in an outburst of protest while
striking his fist violently on the counter of the county recorder’s
office, “You will go to Hell!” He was an intelligent, leading citizen
and churchman, but he was sometimes intemperate as he was on
this occasion. Some years after my return from school he publicly
apologized, and still later wanted me to take his son, John M., into
my office and teach him the law.

My action was literally revolutionary in the sphere in which I

Student

lived, for my family was of humble surroundings. But more impor-
tant was the fact that it was a violation of religious duty to go to
law with a brother. It was in the environment that Bishop Pollard
and President Cannon lived; it was a simple life, not complicated
as it is now. 1

Injustice to Angus M. Cannon, my proposal was to him like
dashing cold water in his face out of a clear sky. But as he cooled
off and as we talked about the matter more deliberately and I
unfolded to him the service I hoped to render with the advantage
to myself, he moderated, softened, and advised that I see President
Taylor. Understandably, however, I was so shaken by his prophecy
that I would go to Hell that I immediately walked up the block to
see Bishop Robert T. Burton, whom I highly regarded as I had
previously regarded Angus M. The effect of the experience was
that I quickly determined that I would make President Cannon’s
prophecy a false one. 1

Bishop Burton suggested that I see President Cannon’s
brother, George Q., the leading intellectual in the Church leader-
ship. The latter insisted in turn that I talk to President Taylor
himself. My only direct contact with President Taylor was on this
occasion. I presented to him my plans, but President Taylor was
behind the times, for he said that being a lawyer was a dangerous
calling. He was logical in his reasoning from the basis of the
Church's attitude on its members going to law with each other and
the fact that lawyers would take either side of a controversy. His
experience and that of the Church was that lawyers had been a
source of great wrongs and injustice, as well as advantage to the
right and justice, and therefore the profession was dangerous in
that an attorney occupied a place of great power in promoting
both the good and the bad.

President Taylor and our people generally were not familiar
with the ethics and high ideals that college law students have
instilled in them by their teachers and the leaders of the legal
profession. The history and philosophy of the law and the legal
profession that have so much to do with its administration were
and are the exact opposite of what the ordinary layman and

3 Memorandum dated Mar. 1942, Box 9, fd 5.

4 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 5.

109

Chapter 4

especially a frontier people believed the practice of the law was.
No other profession has or can have higher or nobler conceptions.
The study of the law and its history and that of the part which an
honorable lawyer lakes in its administration constitutes a trust and
responsibility of the highest order and inspires a loyalty such as no
other profession equals. ’

After some discussion, President Taylor acquiesced and
agreed to bless me in my decision, and with President Cannon
assisting, he laid his hands upon my head and gave me the
following blessing:

Brother Moyle, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the
virtue of the Holy Priesthood, we lay our hands upon thy head to seal
upon thee a blessing, upon certain conditions which thou hast thyself
proposed to attend to.

As thou has had in thine heart a desire to go forth to study law
in order that thou mayest become proficient therein, we say unto
thee that this is a dangerous profession, one that leads many people
down to destruction; yet if you wilt with clean hands and a pure heart,
fearing God and working righteousness, and with a desire to maintain
the truth and to defend the rights of the Church and Kingdom of
God on the earth;— if thou wilt abstain from arguing falsely and on
false principles maintaining only the things that can be honorably
sustained by honorable men, if thou wilt dedicate thyself unto God
every day and ask for His blessing and guidance, the Lord God will
bless thee in this calling; and thou shalt be blessed with wisdom and
intelligence, and with the light of revelation, and thou shalt be an
instrument in the hands of God to assist, to protect the rights and
liberties and immunities of His people. But if thou doest not these
things thou wilt go down and wither away. We therefore set thee apart
on the conditions that have been mentioned and say unto thee that
if thou wilt go forth as an Elder of Israel, as a servant of the Living
God, holding the Holy Priesthood; if thou wilt maintain thine integ-
rity and be true to Israel God will bless thee and thou shalt be known
in Israel as an honorable man and thou shalt grow up in virtue, in
intelligence, in power, in wisdom, and stand as a mighty man among
the house of Israel and be a defender of the principles of eternal truth
and of the rights and liberties and immunities of the people of God.

We set thee apart on these conditions and under these circum-

110

5 Memorandum dated Apr.-May 1943, Box 9, fd 7.

Student

stances, to go forth as thou hast desired to study and become
acquainted with all the principles of law and equity. And we say unto
thee: if thou wilt abstain from chicanery and from fraud and from
covetousness and if thou wilt cleave to the truth, God will bless thee,
and we bless thee, and seal upon thy head the blessings pronounced
upon thee in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.’

It was because of a lack of knowledge and in the face of a
profound belief and practice of the Latter-day Saints that it was
wrong to go to law with a brother that the Brethren very generally
believed that “lawyer” and “liar” were synonyms as a rule and that
a truthful, strictly honest lawyer was a rare exception.

The foregoing is presented injustice to President Taylor and
the Church leaders who believed in the strictest code of honesty
and knew but little about the ethics of the educated lawyer. So
far as I can recall there were very few college-trained lawyers in
the Church when I was admitted to the bar in 1 885— Aurelius
Miner, LeGrand Young, Henry H. Rolapp. Rolapp graduated a
year before I did, LeGrand a few years before that, and Aurelius
Miner before he came to Utah. There were several Church law-
yers who were admitted to the bar and actively practicing who
had acquired their knowledge of the law at home. Among them
was my benefactor, Franklin Snyder Richards, in whose office in
Salt Lake City 1 commenced the practice and soon became his
partner in the firm of Richards and Moyle. He was a very good
lawyer— city attorney and Church attorney, frequently appearing
in the Supreme Court of the United Slates. Samuel R. Thurman
was an active young lawyer in Provo, and possibly Nathan Tanner
in Ogden. 6 7

As I look back over the years and survey the changes that
have taken place and the extremes with which our boys bave
taken to the legal profession (for I am sure there are more of
them to our population than in any other community) 1 reached
the conclusion that I would like to have at least one son a lawyer,
but that a better field for usefulness now is in the field in industry.
The legal profession lias become so numerous that comparatively
few excel in it. Its professional standard is greatly lowered, and

6 Transcript dated 30 Aug. 1882, Box 6, fd 7.

7 Memorandum dated Apr.-May 1943, Box 9, fd 7.

Ill

Chapter 4

many regard it only as a means of making a living without hard
work and appearing on a work day in the apparel of a gentleman
of leisure or wealth. Such was not the conceptions of lawyers,
even those whom our people thought unworthy of commenda-
tion. When I was a boy, I found they generally had very high
ideals. There always were shysters and mercenary lawyers, but
that was not the general tenor of their characters. In my youth
a lawyer who advertised or solicited employment was not re-
spected by his fellow lawyers. However, I left my boys to choose
their own callings, hoping they would follow their natural bent.
Success in the law is largely measured by the love and respect
one has for it. Such also is the case with judges in the law. It is
a sad fact that too many of our judges are not paid for the services
of a real lawyer, and occupy the position because the small sala-
ries paid are more than they could earn in their professional
practice. There are notable exceptions, and some lawyers who
are unable to make money in the practice of their profession
make successful judges. But carpenters are paid more . 8 9

Ann Arbor and George Sutherland

I arrived at law school with three certificates from President
John R. Park for college work accomplished in the Deseret Univer-
sity (the doctor made all he could of it), and provisions for a
three-year residence in a great American university. I entered a
new world with the aroma of the sagebrush still in my nostrils and
a solemn resolve that my ambitions could only be realized by
never-ending devotion to hard work, for I had determined to do
five years of work in three years. The door was wide open even for
me in the greatest center of learning west of the Atlantic, the
University of Michigan at Ann Arbor . 8

In all events, I went to the University with a good record
behind me, except that I had not done much socially. There was
no young lady in my life in any way attached to me. I regret that
veiy much. The experience would have helped me in the wider
field greatly. That lack handicapped me in Ann Arbor and I

112

8 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 4.

9 Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 2.

Student

realized it, but 1 was determined to overcome my still lingering
weakness. 1 "

1 have always thought, and I believe now, that the first man to
whom 1 spoke in Ann Arbor was George Sutherland. My memory
is that I was sitting in the small lobby of Cook’s Hotel, which, by
the way, was the leading hotel of consequence in the city. The
fraternity houses were numerous and fine but only for the rich. As
1 sat there a man whom I thought had just registered came from
the clerk’s desk into the center of the room. For some reason, I
liked his appearance. There was that about him that seemed
familiar to me, almost as if I had seen him before. So I walked over
and introduced myself to him and to my delight found he was from
Utah. The meeting was so agreeable that we went out together to
search for a room."

We found the Henderson house only two or three blocks
away and on the road toward the university. It was a nice, good-
sized, well-built, and well-kept wooden structure, and the house
of a well-known family. In addition to the father and mother,
a son and his wife lived there. He owned and operated a shoe
store. This Mrs. Henderson, a stout but dignified woman, met
us at the door and said she had two nice rooms to rent at the
head of the stairs. One of her first questions was, “Where are
you from?” Utah, of course. Then the unfailing next was, “Are
you Mormons?” I said, “Yes,” and George said, “No.” She was
set back some with my answer, but recovered herself soon. She
afterwards indicated that she thought we looked like nice young
men anyway, and did not turn us down when we concluded we
wanted to stay.

She came to like us both, and 1 made a hit with her by going

10 Memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, Id 6.

11 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. See Joel Francis Paschal, Jr.,
Justice Sutherland: A Man Against the State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1951). Concerned primarily with Sutherland’s actions and philosophies as a member
of the U.S. Supreme Court, Paschal says little about either Sutherland’s Mormon/
Utah background or his education at Ann Arbor. There is no mention of Moyle in the
Paschal book. Incidentally, although as Moyle indicates Sutherland never admitted
any affiliation with Mormonism, Leonard Arrington maintains that a certificate in the
LDS church archives proves that the justice was ordained a deacon in the church’s
Aaronic priesthood.

113

Chapter 4

with her to her Congregational Church. The old gentlemai was
not so much of a churchgoer. He was more of a politician, thiugh
not prominent as such. I had some talks with her on religion and
we came to be the best of friends.

I stayed there two years, but George left in six month, in
March I think, which was then the end of the law school yar. I
entered the law school the next year when the regular school 'ear
was extended into June.

Sutherland was fine and clean-cut in appearance, with ine
morals, intellect, and industry. He was blessed with a logical, Igal
mind. It was logical and natural for him to find and hold eventully
a seat on the highest court of the land, and to distinguish hircelf
there as a great constitutional lawyer. His elevation to the Suprme
Court from the United States Senate when it occurred was du to
his intimacy there with Senator (and later President) WarrerG.
Harding who gave him the appointment.

George and I were very different, especially in religion nd
politics. We had no differences in anything else. His parents care
to Utah as Mormon converts. His father drifted into the Tilic
Mining District and read law (I presume) and became justice of te
peace and a lawyer. Thus George read law and was admittedo
advance standing and the senior class in the University of Michittn
and graduated in six months . 12

George and I encouraged each other in our studies. He wotd
have been invaluable to me if I had been studying law at the tire,
but we indulged often in arguments that became very heated bch
as to religion and politics. I was a Mormon; he was not. He was r-
dently Republican; I was (if possible) moreso Democratic. But te
really fiercest fight we ever had was in bed one night over his chaf-
ing Brigham Young and Church leaders with being responsible fr
the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the most violently unfort una;
event in Utah’s early history. Neither of us knew much about it, bt
George had had a full dose of anti-Mormon stories as his father lid
left the Church. George had attended the Brigham Young Acat
emy at Provo and was naturally fair-minded or I think we word
have gotten out of bed and fought the issue to a finish. I thin

12 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. See also memorandum dated
Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd2.

114

Student

George would have gotten the worst of it, because I was stronger
and very athletic. We were about the same height, but I was a bit
heavier. As it was we came near to blows anyway, each believing he
had the story straight, and each maintaining his grounds.

I was perfectly satisfied then as now of Brigham Young’s
innocence in the matter. My father was intimate with John R.
Haslam, Brigham Young’s storekeeper. He had charge of the store
kept for the family of Brigham Young which was located in the
rear of the Beehive House. Well, Haslam often repeated the story
that when Brigham Young did learn that there was danger of a
massacre he sent him immediately to John D. Lee and others
urging and directing that the emigrants not be disturbed and be
permitted to pass through the country unmolested. My father was
as bitterly opposed to the massacre as a man could be, and would
have disclosed his doubts if there had been any about Brigham
Young’s innocence. The fact was that some of the emigrants had
outraged the feelings of the settlers and the Indians with their
statements and conduct as related in Utah history. This, together
with the cupidity of the Indians (and possibly some of the whites),
led to the horrible tragedy. Some believed that the emigrants had
even poisoned springs . 11

George, on the other hand, had imbibed the anti-Mormon
attitude on the subject that I could not tolerate. President Grant
was later surprised with my version of George’s attitude, for in
Provo he had always been moderate, because he, of course, wanted
to live there and do business with the Mormons. But when you
sleep with a man six months and eat with him, there is not much
that does not come to the surface. George knew our people and
much of their merits and he was always inclined to be decent to
Mormons, but he was not at all sympathetic with their leaders. He
got much of this from his father who I am sure was a real “Liberal”
and anti- rather than pro-Mormon . 5

13 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. See Juanita Brooks, The Moun-
tain Meadows Massacre (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1950); Ray W. Irwin,
“The Mountain Meadows Massacre,” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 9 (Spring 1950): 1-
32.

14 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 13, fd 1. See also memorandum dated
Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1.

15 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. “Liberal” in this case means a

115

Chapter 4

The thing that probably kept us from fighting was that George
was impressed with my physical superiority, inasmuch as I was
asked (and he was not) to be on the university heavyweight pulling
team. I was also distinguishing myself physically in another sport
between the classes which was not football, for that required too
much time for training, but it was similar in that a football was
tossed up in the air in front of both classes and the winner carried
the ball the greatest distance. I was good in both. In those contests
my head was bruised, some shirts torn off, and actual damage done
to my limbs. They were really no more than mass brawls. Rushing
was common, which was also a barbaric practice that occurred not
only on the campus between classes, but at other places, notably
the post office, where conglomerate crowds gathered. On one
occasion, a lumber partition in the post office was badly damaged.

The physical contests between classes were fierce. 1 well re-
member one in which we marched through the streets boisterously
until the police tried to stop us. We ignored them, taking the law
into our own hands. Finally, we equipped ourselves with the
pickets from a fence we passed, destroying many of them by
pulling and breaking them off. When that operation was over we
cooled off and wiser heads secured an end of hostilities, and we
dispersed. Well, George did not engage in these brutalities, but I
was in the thickest of it; George knew I was not inclined to avoid
a fight.

That period included another real barbarity, now fortunately
nearly forgotten— college hazing. It really meant vicious things in
those days. In Ann Arbor it was not rare for a gang to enter a
student’s room and take him forcibly and if need be violently to
some place like Ypsilanti miles away in the dead of night, and let
him walk back. They might duck him severely in water, embarrass
him by undressing him, or even by beating him brutally and doing
the last thing you would think college men would do.

A Mormon Among Mormons

All that was very new to us, though we were from the “wild
and woolly West.” We had heard stories that made George very
fearful, because he thought I would be hazed without doubt to the

116

member of the anti-Mormon political party in Utah, or a subscriber to its principles.

Student

embarrassment of both of us, because he could not induce me to
cease talking Mormonism. The newspapers were filled with anti-
Mormon stuff, mostly against polygamy. At that time. Mormon
polygamists were going to the penitentiary almost daily. There was
real excitement over the matter; the clergy was extremely active in
the crusade."’ But my entire life until statehood was one of protest
against the ills of prejudice, misunderstanding, and persecution.
Rather than stop discussing Mormonism, I decided to resist any
hazing and prepared for it by carrying heavy hickory canes I fully
determined to use if attacked. The barbarity, however, was fast
disappearing by then. 1,

George and I sat together one time in the Ann Arbor Opera
House joined together in a political campaign meeting in which
the very prominent Congressman Hoar of Michigan was the
speaker. Among other rash things, he related a conversation with
George Q. Cannon, the delegate from Utah at the time and one
of the heads of the Church. Then he said in his most vehement
way, “Constitution or no Constitution, Mormonism will be
crushed or destroyed.” I do not now remember anything else he
said, but my blood literally boiled. George was quiet, but his mind
was too fair and legal to endorse that kind of rhetoric.

I did not go out of the way to defend or promote Mormonism,
neither did I shrink from the duty as I saw it to defend it when it
was attacked, and I was very frequently questioned about it. In the
place of surrendering or lowering my standard, 1 purchased two
of the best substantial walking canes that I placed where most
conveniently available, and I assured George that nothing could
prevent a real fight if there was any opportunity for it. George, for
one, was satisfied that I could and would fight. As it turned out I
never had to use those canes. Conversely, I made many friends by
defending my unpopular people. This was never better illustrated
than in my last year in Ann Arbor when I defended the Church in
the Webster Debating Society as a candidate for its presidency and
won the election because of my defense.

Fergus “Ferg” Ferguson came along several weeks after Suth-

16 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. See Orma Linford, “The Mor-
mons and the Law: The Polygamy Cases,” Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1964.

17 Memorandum dated May 1943, Box 10, fd 1.

117

Chapter 4

erland and I arrived. He was bright and apparently well-equiped
naturally. I think, in fact, that he really was gifted and could hve
gotten anywhere if he had valued my motto, that work will get ou
anywhere, and idleness nowhere worthwhile. He was very agee-
able— anyone could get along with him. He was very naturdly
sociable and engaging. He consequently formed kindred asstci-
ates who spent too much time in the pool rooms and beer hals.
He could carry more beer than the next man and he repored
occasionally that he had been out till after midnight and left tie
other boys under the table, but that he did not drink too muih.
He was too much of a jolly good fellow to be a good student ir
lawyer. He even ran out of friends before the short school year wts
over and went home, notwithstanding the fact that he got alotg
fairly well without studying much, especially at first. But as tine
went on, he had more trouble and found fault with his teaches’
lessons. He really had some good ideas and I felt what a shame it
was that he had it all over me in only needing to study a little to
get along very well.

My bank account was meager but I loaned Ferg a substantial
part of his fare home and went without some in consequence of
it, but I always liked him. His father was a bright, self-made lawyer.
1 am not sure that he was admitted to the bar. He (the father) was
a Mormon and had two families. Ferg paid no attention to religion,
but was really a fine fellow and naturally a popular character. He
became county clerk of Salt Lake County in the 1890s under the
Liberal Party regime. He married one of our brightest and leading
young ladies, Jeannette Sharp, daughter of Bishop John Sharp. He
left a bright, fine young family when he died. He was loved, I am
sure, by those who knew him years since because of his many
splendid qualities. Miss Sharp and her father visited him in Ann
Arbor. It was easy to see that she loved him, for he was easy to love.
His virtues were many, but his life is the best example I have ever
known of how little may be accomplished by one most richly
endowed by nature. Nevertheless, Ferguson was always a gentle-
man, never a bum or degenerate, and did not become a drunkard,
though I think he always drank. ls

I had determined after President Taylor’s blessing to avoid

118

18 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1.

Student

every semblance of taking the wrong course in life. That should
modify some of the condemnation I deserve for my puritanical
frame of mind in dealing with Henry H. Rolapp’s dereliction in
falling with the boys in Michigan whom 1 would not. I had
determined to shun the appearance of evil or any of the avenues
to it. 1 " Ironically, I was given greater attention and just as friendly
consideration as that conferred upon Rolapp, George Sutherland,
Waldemar Van Cott, David Evans, and H. S. Laney, all of Mormon
origin but not professing to be Mormons. This was true notwith-
standing the fact that all of the gentlemen named were excellent
students, and were recognized as men of promise. The last one,
Laney, made an extreme effort to have it known that he was not a
Mormon, although his father was a member of the Church in
Missouri and his people had suffered at the Haim’s Mill massacre.
His effort to disabuse all of his connections with the Church,
however, did not promote his popularity, although he otherwise
bore a good name.

In Defense of Mormonism

In the law school there were held each year a moot Congress
and a political convention for the nomination of presidential
officers. In these I was recognized as a leader, for my missionary
work had better equipped me than most for delivering addresses
and taking part in discussions. The university also provided the
law school with rooms in the University Building for two debating
clubs, the Webster and the Jeffersonian. The former was the older
and more prominent, and I became a member of the same. It was
customary to elect a senior at the beginning of each school year
president of the club, and my friends urged me to run. The custom
was to have a discussion at each weekly meeting in which two led
on each side in a debate, followed by a general debate. The night
before the election the subject was changed at the instigation of
iny opponents to the subject of “Mormonism and Polygamy” for
the sole purpose of embarrassing me and my candidacy, for they
knew that I would meet such issues without hesitance.

On the night of the debate, and at the conclusion of the

19 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 5. See diary entries dated 8 Mar., 26-27
Mar., 29 Mar. 1884, Box 1, fd 3.

119

Chaptkr 4

opening debate, a member called the name of Moyle, knowing
that I would respond, which I did. I believe I then gave the best
address I had ever delivered. I appeared at exceptional advantage
because a man named Summers, a clever student who had studied
for the ministry and who soon after graduation became district
attorney in Illinois, asked plying questions that I was completely
accustomed to meeting on my mission, and for which I had very
pertinent answers. 1 won my points handily and to the very great
discomfort of my antagonists. This naturally resulted in the stock
of James H. Moyle being greatly increased, and I was so respected
for my courage in defending the most unpopular people in the
country that I was elected with a good majority. Attorney W. R.
Hutchinson of Salt Lake City was the candidate of the Ohio
students. But the result of that meeting made him a life-long
friend. A fellow who later became a prominent railroad lawyer
in Milwaukee voiced the sentiments of many when he said that
he was very much prejudiced against the Mormons, but that
anyone who would stand up for them, and acquit himself as I
did, commanded his admiration. He added that he felt to vote
against me would be to submit to the charge of being narrow, if
not bigoted.

In the moot Congress and national conventions, the students
were divided into local groups. Those coming from west of the
Mississippi River were known as the trans-Mississippi boys, and
constituted the largest single unit. Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and
Michigan each constituted a separate unit, and had many stu-
dents in this school. The states from the East and South combined
constituted another. I was always the favorite candidate of the
trans-Mississippi boys for the highest honors, and when it came
to electing class officers, I was their candidate for president of
the class, an honor regarded as the highest distinction in the
university. I proved to be the most popular candidate of the
several divisions, so much that they were unable to make a com-
bination against me in favor of any one of the candidates of the
respective divisions. This resulted in a deadlock. I was finally
defeated on the thirty-ninth ballot by the introduction of a dark
horse. A history is kept of the class organization, and many of
those who voted against me said that if I would accept any other

120

Student

office, they would support me, but they did not want a Mormon
to be president of the class.'"

The Democratic National Convention of 1884

In keeping with my father’s desire that I get a political educa-
tion, 21 he arranged for me to go to the Democratic National
Convention in Chicago during the summer of 1884 as a correspon-
dent of the Salt Lake Herald. I witnessed every second of that
convention and during the adjournments between sessions spent
all my time in the headquarters of the presidential candidates. The
most exciting events in the convention were the fierce and vicious
attacks of Tammany Hall, then all-powerful in New York Demo-
cratic state politics and in New York City. It attacked Grover
Cleveland under the leadership of Boss Kelly and on the floor of
the convention through its eloquent and fiery Irish orators. Nev-
ertheless, I will never forget the final speaker in favor of Cleveland
who brought the jammed convention into an uproarious, un-
bounded, clapping, shouting, feet-stamping, flag-waving riot by his
closing sentence: “We love him for the enemies he has made.” 22

Utah’s theocratic democracy, from its inception to its dissolu-
tion with the Peoples Party in 1891, elected, as all territories did, a
delegate to Congress. And with absolute uniformity, the delegate
from Utah sat on the Democratic side of the House of Repre-
sentatives, and there was never the slightest agitation in the Peo-
ples Party for its delegates to sit on the Republican side. Even the
two or three ex-Whigs among the leaders did not in their hearts
want the delegate to sit with the Republicans or to cohabit with the
carpetbag federal officials of the territory either in Washington or
in Utah. If the delegate had done so, his defeat in the next election
would have been certain. When I went to the University of Michi-
gan in 1882, and particularly when I entered the law school in 1883
where politics were rampant, I was at once one of its most enthusi-
astic Democrats, with Democracy born and bred in me as fully as in

20 Memorandum dated Mar. 1932, Box 9, fd 3.

21 See James Moyle to James Henry Moyle, 25 Dec. 1882, Box 3, fd 1; Gene A.
Sessions, ed., “Biographies and Reminiscences from the James Henry Moyle Collec-
tion,” unpublished manuscript, CLA, sec. 14, letter 5.

22 Memorandum dated Feb.-Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6. See James H. Moyle, “Tam-
many Hall,” The Contributor, Oct. 1884, 35-39.

121

Chapter 4

any. That enthusiasm was exhibited by my being one of a very few
students who attended the Democratic state convention held in
Detroit in 1884, and so great was my exhibition of enthusiasm that
1 was invited by the co-chairman with his headquarters in Ann Ar-
bor to be a speaker in the campaign. My breeding was solely in the
Democratic atmosphere of Utah years before an organized “Sage-
brush Democracy,” and 1 was typical of young Mormons who gave
any thought to politics. Democracy was practically universal
among them. 1 did not know in those days of a solitary Mormon
boy who was Republican, except Frank J. Cannon who had to run
away from home to get it in San Francisco where he worked on the
Chronicle, a Republican paper. And even he ultimately became a
Democrat here at home. I was a typical Mormon Democrat, so I not
only availed myself of the first opportunity to attend a Democratic
national convention, but I spent every second of the duration of
the 1884 convention in Chicago that first nominated Cleveland
just sixty years ago. And there was no one in that convention who
took a deeper interest in it. I spent every evening until midnight in
the headquarters of the candidates, and especially at that of the
man who was dubbed the “noblest Roman of them all,” Allen G.
Thurman, the common man of Ohio who was bitterly opposed by
wealth and the privileged class. Mighty, rousing, and fiery meetings
were held in his headquarters," ' the scene of the greatest activity.
There was more or less continuous oratory there every evening un-
til a late hour due to which I spent more time there than anywhere
else. It was the most exciting of all. It was claimed and proclaimed
excitedly that Thurman was the choicest idol of Democracy and
with the common people and that nothing but money could stop
him.

Ben Butler was the most colorful of all the exhibitions both on
the streets and in the convention. His presence on the street from
hotel or headquarters to the convention was always announced by
a brass band and shouting mob, and his entry into the convention
hall was equally boisterous. Ben’s history was colorful and success-
ful. Samuel Tilden started his legal career in Butler’s office.

23 Memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6. See Mark W. Cannon, “The
Mormon Issue in Congress, 1872-1882, Drawing on the Experience of Territorial Dele-
gate George Q. Cannon,” Ph.D diss., Harvard University, 1960.

122

Student

The 1884 Democratic Convention was so fierce and exciting
to me who had never heard of serious internal opposition in the
Peoples Party at home or in the Liberal Party, so far as intra-party
matters were concerned. The N. V. Jones vs. A. M. Cannon flare-up
was the first I had heard of in Salt Lake."' When sixteen, I had
attended the second precinct Peoples Party political primary,
which was a rare thing for a boy then. The senior brethren then
ran such things, or in other words, the ruling members of the
priesthood— stake presidency, high council, and bishops. But I was
greatly interested."'

Thurman was very popular with the average man of his state
and I gained die impression he was a really splendid Democratic
character and would make a fine President of the common man.
I think ourjudge S. R. Thurman was remotely related. There were
other candidates, but the three (Cleveland, Thurman, and Butler)
attracted my attention. My impression of Ben Butler was that he
was a fine and able lawyer, but wealthy and loud, though I do not
recall his speaking, nor that of Thurman. Thurman was popular,
but not with the wealthy class, and Butler was not a very serious
contender though popular. The story of his appropriating to
himself in early days “silver spoons” used at some banquet was
given damaging publicity.®

After I returned from Chicago I became very active and
prominent in the 1884 college politics at the university. It was then
that I was made president of the Webster Debating Society of the
law school and was candidate for senior class president as the
candidate of the trans-Mississippi law students. I had led the riot

24 Memorandum dated Feb.-Apr. 1944, Box 19, fd 6. The “Jones-Cannon flare
up” probably refers to some verbal altercation between the two molluscan leaders of
the People’s Party, which was unusual because of the ecclesiastical nature of the party
leadership. Moyle has already provided some idea of Cannon’s fiery nature in this
chapter. Nathaniel V. Jones, for his part, was arrested and tried several times for physi-
cal assault. See Journal History of the Church, CLA, 10 Jan. 1870, p. 1; 3 Mar. 1870,

p. 2; 14 Aug. 1874, p. 1; 17 Aug. 1874, p. 1; 19 Aug. 1874, p. 4; 1 Sept. 1874, p. 1; 3
Sept. 1874, p. 1.

25 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4.

26 Memorandum dated Feb.-Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6. See Moyle’s diary account
of his experience in Chicago, July 1884, Box 1, fd 3; Gene A. Sessions, ed., “A View of
James Henry Moyle: His Diaries and Letters,” unpublished manuscript, 1974, CLA,
pp. 18-25.

123

Chapter 4

that ensued when the Republican law students in the parade in
honor of Blaine when he visited Ann Arbor carried a banner at
their head saying “The law students solid for Blaine.” I was the first
to get a hold of it and pull it down; then followed the brawl, which
resulted in tearing the banner to pieces with torn clothing and all
but broken bones. There were plenty of bruises and fisticuffs."'

Home Stretch

But with all this excitement I did not forget my primary
purpose in Michigan. In the spring of 1885, 1 managed to graduate
from law school, but it had not been easy mentally or physically. I
am much freer now from aches and pains than I was then. In fact
I am practically free from the bilious headaches and stomach
troubles that seriously afflicted me when I was a college student
even to the extent of incapacitating me for efficient effort in any
mental line of work. I suffered a sickening distress almost every
weekend in Ann Arbor. I was carrying a double load, one in the
law school and the other in the university proper. I did five years
work in three, working two summers alone since there were then
no summer schools."’*

I took the bar examination in Michigan because Franklin S.
Richards urged it and said there was doubt as to whether I could
be admitted to practice in Utah, because I had been through the
Endowment House in which the judges believed oaths were taken
against the Government that showed disloyalty. Fortunately, he
was wrong, but I think I was the first endowed Mormon in that
period of intense excitement and hatred to be admitted to the
Utah bar. The only other I know of, LeGrand Young, had been
earlier when the issue was not so violent. His partner, Parley
Williams, was also interested in Brigham Young’s patronage that
LeGrand, his nephew, would assure to the firm. 29

I often think of what college training did for me. As soon as I
obtained my degree of bachelor of law, I was automatically trans-
ferred from the class in which I moved in the district school of the

27 Ibid.

28 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4.

29 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. Richards had visited Moyle in
Ann Arbor to discuss the possibility of a partnership. See diary entries, Feb. 1885,
Box 1, fd3.

124

Student

Fifteenth Ward where only teamsters, ordinary mechanics, com-
mon farmers, clerks, mason tenders, and pick-and-shovel laborers
moved. My associates graduated into those vocations, and not one
of them went beyond them when they started life, because they
prepared for nothing else. I alone of all the boys in my classes,
except John and Lafayette Burton, sons of Bishop Burton, stepped
up immediately in higher pay and greater distinction, not because
of ability but by greater ambition and industry. I became at once
outstanding and distinctive because I had gone to college and
trained myself for less competition and better opportunity. I wish
I could present the picture as I see it, because it meant a sudden
leap up from a common westside clodhopper (so to speak) to the
highest status a young man could attain. '"

David Whitmer, My First Witness

I was anxious to get home after three long years in school, but
on May 10, 1885, my father wrote to me making a suggestion for
my return trip to Utah that startled me, but upon which I was
happy to act: “David Whitmer, being the only one living of the
three witnesses of the Book of Mormon,” he wrote, “it is my wish
that you make it a point to call and see him for it will be of
advantage to you in a time to come.” So I detoured to Richmond,
Missouri, where I found Brother Whitmer in the yard of his small
home."'

David Whitmer, at the time of my two-hour interview with him,
was in very good health for a man of his years. His mind was clear
and he did not waver, so far as I could observe, even at the end of
a continuous line of questions from a sprouting attorney examin-
ing and cross-examining his first witness in a matter of supreme
importance to him. 1 felt t hat nothing I had ever done was of more
importance to me. I had no thought of its importance to others,
or I would not have contented myself with making only a very brief
statement of the most essential facts in the daily diary I had kept
for years. I had enquired of Brother Whitmer at the hotel where I
had to stay overnight (because there was only one train a day that

30 Memorandum dated Feb.-Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6.

31 See James Moyle to James H. Moyle, 10 May 1885, Box 3, fd 1; Sessions, “Bi-
ographies and Reminiscences,” sec. 14, letter 21.

125

Chapter 4

stopped at Richmond). The clerk said Whitmer was one of the very
highly respected citizens of the community; the driver of the hack
that ran from the train to the hotel told me the same. In fact, the
same answer came from all I questioned and I missed no oppor-
tunity. Whitmer was slender, tall, and of an intellectual cast. He
was frank and willing to respond and had the appearance of an
honest, sincere but plain man of good countenance. He was quite
gray, and the photographs the Church has show him without
beard, but my recollection is that he had a full, long, white beard.
I read in an interview while in Michigan that he had white hair and
a patriarchal beard. It was a very impressive sight. I understood he
was troubled with curiosity seekers and sometimes slow to see
them on that account. So I was grateful he spoke with me for so
long.’ 2

David Whitmer, the only one of the Three Witnesses who did
not return to the Church or become reconciled to it, told me then
in 1885 (just three years before his death) that he had never left
the Church. “I have presided over a branch of the Church here in
Richmond, Missouri, up to the present time.” He also claimed that
Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet of Cod and that he accepted all
that was revealed to him up to 1835. “When Sidney Rigdon
obtained such influence over him, I did not know after 1835
whether his revelations came from God or Sidney Rigdon,” said
Whitmer. “I have presided over this branch from that day to this
and I have never denied the divinity of the Book of Mormon.” He
also told me of a visit to him of Oliver Cowdery shortly before the
latter’s death in which Oliver declared to him the divinity of the
testimony they had borne concerning the Book of Mormon, and
had appealed to Whitmer to continue to be true to it/ 3

In later years I had occasion to feel very disappointed in myself
over the Whitmer interview. Here I was a graduating law student
and a young lawyer and I somehow failed to take an affidavit from
Brother Whitmer.”

32 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. See diary entry dated 28 June
1885, Box 1, fd 3; Sessions, “View of James Henry Moyle,” pp. 28-30.

33 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. See diary entry dated 28 June
1885, Box 1, fd 3; Sessions, “View of James Henry Moyle,” pp. 28-30.

34 Interview with Evelyn Moyle Nelson by Gene A. Sessions, 20 June 1974, tran-
script of twelve pages, p. 6, CLA.

126

Student

Ready for Life

As I traveled on home to Salt Lake City, the concerns of my
mind began to change. To me, the most important event of my life
from my youth through the years was to be united eternally to the
one the Father had in store for me. I devoutly believed that if I
lived a life worthy of His favor, He would provide one who was
best suited to my conditions. I believed perfectly in my patriarchal
blessing and the promise therein that as sure as God existed, when
the right girl appeared, I would be led to her. I knew I would
somehow or other be inspired with the knowledge for which I had
for so long earnestly and devoutly prayed.

That state of mind existed, and I was as free as the air I
breathed from obligations of any kind to any woman when 1
returned home from school. 1 had always held and upheld the
moral privilege of womanhood as something sacred, that it was the
privilege and duty of man to be the head and leader of the family.
1 believed when a woman entrusted herself to intimate association
with a man it was his duty and sacred responsibility to protect her
from sin as much as that of physical harm, because the former was
infinitely the more important of the two. That belief I had inher-
ited from birth and religious environment. It was the belief of all
practically with whom I associated until I reached manhood. It was
a “Mormon” heritage that I have always valued beyond measure
and for which I have the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
to thank. If there were nothing else especially praiseworthy in
Mormonism, that alone would make its existence worthwhile. God
he praised for saving me from that sin, the most debasing, bestial
and degrading of all human weaknesses, and the mortal enemy of
the highest, noblest creative power of man. Sexual immorality is
the polluting of the source of human life, and the destruction of
the greatest happiness in life itself. It involves the highest irrespon-
sibility of life. 1 ’

To make sure that I have adequately expressed my apprecia-
tion for the dearest, choicest, most happy thing, enduring and
greatest blessing of my earthy life, I want my grandchildren to
know what I have often said to my children. In my teens I received
a patriarchal blessing from John Smith, then Patriarch of the

35 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 4.

127

Chapter 4

Church, in which he said that I “would have a wife suited to my
conditions.” I lived and prayed for that blessing more than any
other with a devout belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the divinity
of His work here on earth, and the inspiration of His servants. 36

While I was on my mission I had corresponded quite regularly
with Clint Young and exchanged pictures. I also corresponded
frequently with Hattie and Libby Hooper. I thought the three girls
were the choicest of my acquaintances, but there was nothing in
my letters suggesting marriage. It was only the beginning of a
lifetime of real friendships and cordial relationships. While I was
on a mission, my correspondence with Hattie Hooper ended or
was rare. Then I wrote quite regularly to Libby, who about the time
I went to school or soon after married David C. Dunbar, a brilliant
Salt Lake boy who was then manager or editor of the Omaha
Herald.' 1

At Ann Arbor I corresponded most with Helen Kimball Whit-
ney, the granddaughter of the second bishop of the Church and
sister of Bishop and Apostle Orson F. Whitney. I had called on her
only a few times and never took her out anywhere, but I had paid
exceptional attention to her because she was a young lady of such
fine intelligence and appearance. Her mother was also exception-
ally intelligent. All of this greatly appealed to me, but she im-
pressed me as being moody and even gloomy. 38

While at the Deseret University in 1882, I saw at a distance
(only but once) the girl I would marry— Alice E. Dinwoodey. She
was much younger than I and very slender, and did not particularly
attract my attention, except that I was told by Professor Joseph
Toronto, her teacher, that she was an exceptionally good student.
That was something that I greatly admired and remembered. But
I was not (as they are now) stuck on the very slender. I wanted
children strong, as well as intelligent, boys who would be big,
vigorous, athletic, and healthy.

After I went to Ann Arbor, I saw and heard no more of Alice
and did not even speak of her, except in conversations with Henry

36 Memorandum dated Feb. 1939, Box 8, fd 4.

37 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 4. See Sessions, “View of James Henry
Moyle,” p. 61.

38 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 4.

128

Student

Rolapp, my roommate. He knew her as a friend of Allie Eldredge,
whom he courted. I told him of what Toronto had said and of my
admiration for it. Rolapp also spoke favorably of her. I admired
her father, who was portly rather than slender. I had never seen
her mother except for once and she was stout rather than thin; so
Alice remained in my mind. In the winter of 1886 and 1887 I
attended a university dance on the Sixteenth Ward Square. I had
been anxiously looking for a wife, but had made no headway
whatever and had no feeling of assurance that I had seen the right
one. While dancing with Annie Hooper, I saw a tall young lady on
the other side of the room whose face I thought was absolutely
beautiful. The only time that I can recall ever asking to be intro-
duced to a lady was on this occasion. 1 felt before meeting her that
if she was what she seemed to me to be that she was the girl for
whom I had been so eagerly looking and praying for. From that
night I had no doubt about whom I wanted to marry and did not
let the grass grow under my feet. We were engaged on September
13 following and married November 17, 1887. 1 was ready for life."

39 Memorandum dated Feb. 1939, Box 8, fd 4. See also for the period of this
chapter the following: Memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6; reminiscences
dated 1896-1938, Box 1, fd 4; Sessions, “View of James Henry Moyle,” pp. 1-31.

129

Chapter 5

LAWYER, LEGISLATOR,
AND DEMOCRAT

The First Years

Immediately after my return home in 1885 I entered the law firm
of Franklin S. Richards, with offices located in the Hooper Build-
ing which had just been erected. Later we moved to the new
Constitution Building. In August or September I was made assis-
tant city attorney under Richards, and at the same time I was
appointed deputy county attorney for Salt Lake County, and
immediately entered upon a very active practice of the law, espe-
cially as police court prosecutor. I also did all the prosecuting in
all of the courts in behalf of the county attorney. During the
following year, 1886, I was elected county attorney and re-elected
in 1888 by the Peoples Party, and at the same time was elected to
the territorial legislature, in which I took a prominent part. 1

When I first ran for county attorney just after leaving school,
my old friend, Thomas F. Howells, said that I was on the way to

1 Memorandum dated Mar. 1932, Box 9, fd 3; James Henry Moyle Collection,
Library-Archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
Salt Lake City, hereinafter cited as CI.A. All references hereinafter to box and folder
(fd) are for items from this collection. The Hooper Building was located on the north
side of First South between Main and State streets.

131

Chapter 5

apostasy from the Church and used the fact against me, though he
had always before been very friendly. I think he was influenced
some by jealousy, though he was in no sense a rival. His ambition
was to teach school as he was doing and did all his life. He was
older than I, and I seemed to be moving up too rapidly. When I
fitted into the situation he became a friend and admirer again. J

In this connection, George Q. Cannon and Brigham Young,
Jr., attended the celebration in the old courthouse when I was first
elected county attorney in 1886, and we had a keg of beer for the
few who were present and at which Apostle Young rather shocked
me with the freedom of his indulgence. The virtues of men like
Elder Young and their real worth are undeniable, but efforts to
conceal the wrong and exalt the right accomplish nothing. It is
rather alack of knowledge of the conditions under which they lived
that makes some of their actions easily misunderstood in the light
of today.'

During those first years of my law practice, criminal cases
appealed from the police court or precinct justices of the peace
were frequently not prosecuted there and were left without action
because of the prejudiced judges and (very frequently) jurors who
were often selected by deputy marshals who would select their
friendly acquaintances who liked the job. Not a few were of the
street-loafing kind, so that between the prejudice of the judges and
jurors against anything Mormon the verdict was usually known
before the case was ever heard. It was so bad that the old county
attorney, a very reputable and fine man, had seen justice defeated
so often that he began to let cases rest, because he felt that it was
hopeless or not worthwhile trying. 1

Judge Charles S. Zane was a man of fine, clean, and moral
quality. His son John and I were in some classes together at Ann
Arbor, although he did not study law. I got on fairly well withjudge
Zane and he treated me very well. 1 was also ambitious, and keen

2 Memorandum dated Mar. 1945, Box 12, fd 2.

3 Memorandum dated Sept., Nov.-Dee. 1943, Box 10, Id 3. See comments on
the same subject in chap. 2.

4 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 4. See John Nebeker, “Earlyjustice in
Utah," Utah Historical Quarterly 3 (1935): 87-89.

132

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat

to make a good record, hence I was persistent and on the job with
the result that 1 cleaned out all of the old cases within a few weeks. ’

It was almost a nightly occurrence for someone to be drugged
or so drunk that he would be robbed. One favorite scheme was to
get a man drunk or drugged and have some fellow quarrel with
him then get him on the floor and roll him around until his pockets
were relieved of money, beat him, and then get away. There were
generally a bunch of loafers around to do the job and share the
profits. 5 6

Offenders often attempted to bribe the prosecuting attorney.
A party charged with a police court offense would say to the
prosecutor that he wanted to retain his service for which he offered
a “fee.” I was new in the business, but I recognized it for what it
was and to each firmly replied that 1 could not accept the money.
At first the approach was so apparently innocent and cleverly made
that 1 took no action, but when it was repeated several times, I
determined to end these attempts not only by prosecuting the
individuals vigorously, but when the trials came I informed the
judge of the facts and asked that they be given the limit of the law
authorized. That medicine was a perfect antidote and I was never
again annoyed by a bribery attempt.

As county attorney and member of the legislature, I received
from the two railroad systems free annual passes for their roads in
Utah, as was their custom in all such cases. These I returned
unused. When Dan Spencer, my boyhood chum and then assistant
passenger agent (and later the general agent of the Union Pacific),
urged me to accept, 1 replied: “I am now a public official, and 1
will not be embarrassed by your coming to me asking aid in getting
a privilege from the city council or legislature. I am going to be
absolutely free in my political and public activities.” That was the
substance of it. But it was not an uncommon thing at the same
time for influential men to ask for and use their influence to get
not only such passes over the Utah roads but general passes. Parley
L. Williams, so long the attorney for the Union Pacific system in
this section, said to me that he was disgusted when he even had a

5 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 4. See Thomas G. Alexander, “Charles S.
Zane, Apostle of the New Era,” Utah Historical Quarterly 34 (Fall 1966): 290-314.

Ibid.

133

Chapter 5

member of the Supreme Court (when important railroad cases
were before that court) insist that he be given not only a pass over
the system to Omaha but over connecting lines to New York and
then over the steamship lines to Europe. He named the man, but
1 will not.'

Defending Polygamists

During the late 1880s I was also active in the defense of
polygamists, and I accompanied Sheriff Andrew Burt and William
Salmon, a city policeman, on visits to the underground to interview
witnesses and polygamists in hiding. We usually went at night and
I recall carrying a pistol. Burt, who was also chief of police and
bishop of the Twenty-first Ward, made me a special policeman with
a star and club I still have. s

During the administration of Church President John Taylor,
and notwithstanding congressional legislation and vigorous fed-
eral criminal prosecutions by anti-Mormon Federal officials, obe-
dience to the law of plural marriage was emphasized more than
ever before. In the selection of Church officials, polygamists were
considered only where they could be found fitted for the work to
be performed, but they were generally the superior men of the
Church anyway. It is my understanding that the failure to select a
polygamist was a rare exception. So not only monogamist office-
holders but also members generally were urged more strenuously
than before to enter into polygamy. John Taylor was reputed to be
emphasizing that issue somewhat the same as Heber J. Grant is
now emphasizing the importance of obedience to the Word of
Wisdom and the payment of tithing. It was even asserted that
President Taylor had received a revelation on the subject.

There is no doubt that the leaders of the Church were in
earnest about the necessity of plural marriage in the face of
threatened imprisonment and seizure of property. Moreover,
there can be no doubt that the members obeyed that principle as
a sacred institution and divine command. The question is now
raised as to whether the members generally accepted that principle

184

7 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1943, Box 10, fd 3.
K Memorandum dated 1942, Box 9, fd 5.

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat

as a part of their religion. I have no hesitance in saying that they
did, and that they sincerely believed in its divine origin. 9 10

I recognized polygamy as a part of my religious belief, an
essential element among the principles of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, and I said to my wife when we were engaged that I was a
whole-soul believer in the Gospel (which included polygamy) as
understood by the Latter-day Saints. I added that I had no thought
of engaging in that principle and had no desire to do so, and that
I probably never would become a polygamist so far as I could then
determine, but that if I should become convinced that it was my
duty to take another wife, I should be free to do so. To that, my
fiance consented.

In view of all that has happened since my engagement, the
question has often arisen in my mind as to whether the revelation
on plural marriage was from God. My conclusion after pondering
the matter for over fifty years is that plurality of wives under the
sacred ordinances of the Church was a divine institution. But as
my mind was directed to the subject recently by reading the sixth
volume of the Roberts history of the first century of Mormonism
and especially the Woodruff Manifesto of 1890, I asked myself,
what would be the result if the revelation was not from God? The
conclusion is that even in that event my faith in the Gospel is such
that I would be unshaken in my belief that Joseph Smith was a
prophet of God, and that the Gospel as otherwise revealed is true.
1 searched my mind on the subject and could come to no other
conclusion. It just does not matter to my faith in the Church." 1

The Practice of Law in Early Utah

The General Authorities held offices in large corporations
when I was active in the practice of law in the 1890s and early years
of this century. Members of the Twelve then became directors even
of mining corporations, with assets only of wildcat mining loca-
tions of no known value— purely speculative. The names helped to
sell stock. But when I commenced to practice law in 1885 there

9 Memorandum dated May 1938, Box 9, fd 3.

10 Memorandum dated Aug., Oct. 1941, Box 9, fd 6. See Kenneth W. Godfrey,
“The Coming of the Manifesto,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 5 (Autumn
1970): 1-25; Henry J. Wolfinger, “A Reexamination of the Woodruff Manifesto in the
Light of Utah Constitutional History,” Utah Historical Quarterly 39 (Fall 1971): 328-49.

135

Chapter 5

were very few corporations. I am quite sure partnerships were far
more numerous and prominent in businesses both large and small.
There were then even private banks. It would be interesting and
instructive to know when Walker Brothers were incorporated and
others. But a big change came in business with the Panic of 1893.
Up to that time, there were very few corporations, but they
multiplied very rapidly thereafter. (Now partnerships are becom-
ing more popular again to avoid business concerns from getting
into the higher brackets of the income tax.) After the Panic of
1893, corporations were popular to avoid personal liability beyond
the money invested in the corporation. In a partnership, however
small the interest, the liability was unlimited in cases of failure.
And there were numerous failures in that Panic of 1893. In my
opinion and I think it is clear, even Church procedure was vitally
affected by that panic. For example, prior thereto practically all
controversies among members were settled by the Church, but
with the panic, attachments were common and had to be per-
formed in a court of law."

Thus very much of the universal custom or rule among Latter-
day Saints not to take a brother into court gradually ended. The
change developed naturally, sensibly, and with practically no for-
mal action in the matter. I was a high councilor in the Ensign Stake
when it was organized in 1904 and into the 1930s, and we only
tried a case or possibly two a year, and those only for moral
turpitude or violation of some Church law. So ended a salient
feature of pioneer times when pretty much all were of one faith.
It was of vital value then and now illustrates one of the great
vitalities of Mormonism. Should we not therefrom acknowledge
that the boy prophet’s divine mission is very apparent? He pre-
sented to the Church that system of judicure in 1834 when he was
only twenty-nine years old. It was as near perfect for the time and
his people as God Himself could make it. His successors were
inspired in making it effective and a great saving and harmonizing
factor in the Mormon theocracy of the early life of the Church.
While not in use so much now, it still continues the same service

11 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 1, fd 4. See Arrington, “Utah and the
Depression of the 1890s,” pp. 2-18.

136

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat

and always will, because it is built on a divine foundation and
should be used more freely than it is now. 1 "

So it was not until the Panic of 1893 that the Church courts
were not crowded with litigation of all kinds. It was in the early
1890s that I was put on trial in the Twelfth Ward before the bishop
with all of the leading officers of a corporation for suing a brother
in court. It was my only offense in a Church court but in this case
I was only the attorney. The case was promptly dismissed when the
corporate offense of the defendants became apparent, which it
very soon did. 1 '

Healthful, Inspiring Surroundings

As my practice in these various facets of the law began to
provide me with a good living, I turned my attention to a home
for my family. In February of 1892 I purchased with my father-in-
law, Henry Dinwoodey, the northeast corner of First South and
Fourth East for $25,000. It consisted of ten rods on First South
Street and 187 1/2 feet on Fourth East with an addition at the
northeast corner. On the land was an old adobe one-story building
that needed to be removed. After the upper structure had been
torn down, I thought I would remove the floor by myself. So after
office hours I hastened to that floor and began to tear it off. I then
found an older floor underneath, which I proceeded to remove
alone. It was about dusk, and I was lifting something up, using all
my strength, when I suddenly went through the first floor as if
there were no floor under me. Fortunately, my arms caught on the
side of the opening in the floor and to my astonishment I found
that I was over an old well about sixty feet deep. It was then nearly
dark. Few were passing as it was long after the usual travel home
from office and workshop, and all was quiet around me. I was
afraid for a moment that I could not get myself out, but finally
managed to pull myself up. That was an experience I will never
forget. 14

I wanted healthful, inspiring surroundings for my children, so

12 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. See D&C 102; Smith, History of
the Church, 2:28-35.

13 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1.

14 Memorandum dated 1942, Box 9, fd 5.

137

Chapter 5

in 1895 I built a summer home at an elevation of more than 8700
feet at Brighton or Silver Lake. It was the first modern home built
there. Henry W. Lawrence built the first rustic home there. The
only other buildings there at the time were three simple pioneer
log cabins. J. R. Walker, Sr., and Dr. W. F. Anderson had two of
these, and Ben Hampton had the other, which was the rudest of
the three. I:>

In addition to the homes in Brighton and in the city, I
purchased a ninety-six-acre farm, timbered and well-watered, at
Cottonwood in 1903. It was about ten miles from my home in the
city and is now in the choicest suburban home location in the state.

I did this for the same reason I bought Brighton— I wanted health-
ful and inspiring surroundings for my children. I provided my boys
and girls with horses and things like that to give them recreation
and a closeness to life. Sara, for example, had a fine Shetland and
a splendid wicker cart I bought from one of the Walker brothers.
At the farm, I maintained a lake of an acre and a quarter in which
there was ample running water for swimming, boating, and fishing.
So I kept all three homes for my family through the years. I recently
sold the cottage at Brighton to my son James with the under-
standing that it would be kept in the family as a mountain home."'

When my boys were growing, I had a grandson of the noted
German police dog Rin Tin Tin of movie fame. He eventually
became too savage for the city, and we gave him to Grant Ivins
who was then in the country raising chickens. Grant later became
a professor at Brigham Young University. But the dog became
even too vicious for chicken thieves, so Grant gave him to a
lonesome rancher in Idaho where he distinguished himself by
taking a mouthful of the seat of a neighbor’s trousers when he
came to get some gasoline from a pump in the yard. This dog never
gave notice of an attack, but quietly took a bite of what he thought
was an intruder. We had him at our cottage at the farm for several
years and he would not disturb under ordinary circumstances a
well-dressed man or lady, but if a man in overalls came around or
one very poorly dressed, he would quietly follow him and before
he reached the door would advise him to stop by taking hold of

138

15 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 8, fd 3.
Ifi Memorandum dated May 1941, Box 10, fd 6.

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat

the leg of his pants. He was very large and in the city, he soon
discovered that as people approached him on the sidewalk they
gave him the right of way. He soon learned that it was great to
enjoy that privilege so he would trot along the sidewalk just to see
people get out of the way. One day, an elderly man who stood for
his rights on the sidewalk claimed to have been knocked down and
injured. That is when the dog was consigned to the farm and
eventually to Idaho. 1 '

Outside of the Brightons, I was the only Mormon to locate at
Silver Lake when I built our cottage there in 1895. Dr. Anderson,
the only Mormon in his family, preceded me, but he was not active
in the Church. So in the early days there were no Mormons there
except my family. Consequently, I loved to take my family to the
top of the peaks around Brighton on Sunday, and there hold an
informal service of sorts. I never worshipped my God more fer-
vently than when sitting on top of one of those peaks looking at
the surrounding mountains. From majestic Wolverine, 1 1 ,000 feet
elevation, you could see Timpanogos nearby on the south, Twin
Peaks just west, and all the way to the mountains about Logan on
the north, and the peaks in the Uintas on the east. From Wolverine
you could also look down the Little Cottonwood and see the
Jordan, and from Scots Peak on the north you could see through
an opening in the ridge of the main Wasatch on the west the Great
Salt Lake. It was really an impressive sight. I know of nothing that
ever impressed me more spiritually than the grandness of the view
from our high mountain peaks. There a nearness to Deity was a
reality.

I loved in the evening to gaze from the porch in front of the
cottage on Sunset Peak and witness the last rays of the sun shining
on it. It is triangular in form, and from its sides flow the rain and
snow to the east down Snake Creek to Midway, Heber City, and
the Provo River, down Little Cottonwood west and down Big
Cottonwood north, and then west both to the Jordan. I am not
sure whether some of the water does not go south and east down
the American Fork to the Utah Lake. Its peak is the corner of Utah,
Salt Lake, and Wasatch Counties, and Summit is not far away. It
is not quite so high as some others but enough to be impressive.

17 Memorandum dated May 1938, Box 9, fd 3.

139

Chapter 5

Its sides are not so rugged but rather placid and pleasing. I loved
Brighton as no place else on earth, but I had too much to do in
the city to stay there as much as I would have liked. 18

The Legislature of 1888

I was re-elected county attorney in 1887 and at the same time
was elected a member of the house in the territorial legislature of
1888, and made chairman of the committee on education, to my
lasting satisfaction.

I hope to be pardoned for personal references; they seem to
fit in so naturally to me in my old age. But let me here emphasize
the fact that no special individual credit is due me for leadership
in the work of which I will write concerning the establishment of
public institutions for the advancement of the intellectual and
moral welfare of the territory. The real leadership exhibited then
was rather by men who had remained at home and had longer
active public service. I had just emerged from school and this was
my first appearance in real public life. In those days the dominat-
ing motto was that the office should seek the man and not the man
the office and so the senior brethren and controlling statesmen
settled in the background who would be nominated, and the
nomination meant election up to that date, but not thereafter.
Indeed, a new era dawned afterwards and that legislature was its
prelude. The end of the old road had been reached and a new era
for better or worse had arrived by 1890. The wise old leaders
thought for the worse, and even with my recent three years’
absence in a purely intellectual sphere with no contact with home
surroundings and the violent prejudices and existing hatreds, I
found myself largely in sympathy with their fears for the worst.

That legislature of 1888, nevertheless, was the prelude to the
new era in Utah that meant so much of good as well as evil. The
travail through which we passed in the 1890s not only gave birth
to free graded schools, pure running water in houses, sewers, and
street improvements, but it opened the way for progressive think-
ing that ultimately changed the entire intellectual environment in
the territory. But do not think for a moment that there was not
good in the old regime. In fact there was as much of good in the

140

18 Memorandum dated Nov. 1945, Box 13, fd 3.

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat

old as the new philosophy of social and political life, for the time.
The old, as I have said, will furnish the finest field for the study of
empire building and the laying of the soundest foundation upon
to build a lasting, stable structure. The rugged individualism of
Brigham Young’s period was the best for that time. However
inappropriate as 1 believe it would be now, the more we can retain
of that spirit in our present social fabric the better for the state
and individual. But with the New Deal we are again in a social
revolution and a new order of life is inevitable; we will accommo-
date ourselves to it or go into the discard and oblivion into which
all reactionary policies lead. But this is not the point for such
discussions and again may I be pardoned. I am so full of this
thinking that it is a relief to get some of it out of my system. My
point is that the legislature of 1888 and the public institutions it
created and the intellectual progress it promoted were far-seeing
and revolutionary.

Remember, there was but one public institution in the terri-
tory maintained by the territorial treasury and that was the insane
asylum created in 1880. The Deseret Agricultural and Manufactur-
ing Association, which conducted our territorial fairs, was a second
institution, but it provided its own support. 19 I was one of its
directors appointed by Governor Caleb West in 1889 at the same
time I was made a director of the more famous reformatory. The
association’s main job was to conduct the territorial fair, but it was
an important and choice institution whose board members, like
those of the asylum and reformatory, were among the prominent
men of the territory. Possibly a third was the Nauvoo Legion or
territorial militia which, like the fair board, was a real live institu-
tion of great importance and dignity until it became so important
that it was suppressed by Congress as a menace of some kind to
the nation. The officers of the Legion were real dignitaries in their
times and the militia encampments outside of the city were not
only full of great dignity and importance but were also pictur-
esque. The officers of the militia were all proud of their fine, full
blue uniforms and the generals, majors, and captains with their

19 Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 2. See also undated memorandum, Box 8,
fd 6; Leonard J. Arrington, “The Deseret Agricultural and Manufacturing Society in
Pioneer Utah,” Utah Historical Quarterly 24 (1956): 165-70.

141

Chapter 5

dashing, large ostrich-feathered hats were the admiration of the
ladies and children, and jealousy of men. The parade through the
city during the week or more of their annual encampment was
comparable if not greater than the splendid Fourth and Twenty-
fourth of July celebrations we have now. Everybody saw it, and in
the city and parade grounds outside of the city, men and officers
gave up their employment elsewhere and served night and day to
play in the magnificence of their heroic surroundings. I do not
think any were paid, but I do not know. The cavalry and cannon
brigades developed some fine horses and plenty of pride.

The public schools, like the university, were supported com-
pletely by the tuition collected from the students. The legislature
did, however, give to the university $5,000 a year for free tuition
and aid to forty normal students and the same amount for the care
and education of indigent deaf mutes. The majority of the older
statesmen in the legislature who had theretofore dominated the
scene, and with the support of one of the best carpetbag governors
we ever had, bitterly opposed most of the appropriations made.
The demand for brevity prevents more details, but the main
opposition came from and centered in the special friends of the
insane asylum who clamored for an abundant appropriation for
the asylum. It had received theretofore pretty much all of the
territorial revenue except that needed for paying the expense and
salaries of public officials and providing for roads and bridges.
There was a little done also for the fish and game organization.
The Utah County members were real leaders in the legislature and
(with the sympathy of others and the governor) were strongly for
the asylum. But there was a new element elected in 1888, consist-
ing chiefly of the young men particularly from north of Utah
County but scattered all over the state. We organized to defeat
what was called “the asylum ring,” and our revolutionary appro-
priations thereafter made it necessary to bond the territory for the
first time in the sum of $150, 000. 20

An unprecedented sum of $75,000 was appropriated for a
reform school to be located in Ogden, the most important city
in the territory excepting the capital, and $25,000 for an agricul-
tural college to be located in the extreme northern end of the

142

2° Memorandum dated Feb. 1944, Box 10, fd 4.

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat

state. This may sound extraordinary and highly inconsistent as it
did to me at the time. But Salt Lake County was satisfied with
what was done for the university and the fair board, and Cache
with the college, and Weber with the reform school. Nephi, then
an important center, was satisfied with having the federal court
held there once a year. Ogden got the reform school largely
because it had one of the youngest men in the legislature who
came the nearest to being the leader of what I may be permitted
to call the progressive forces of that legislature, C. C. Richards.
It was he who organized the Weber forces, who to a man wanted
the reform school rather than the college, and he had the best
of company in that undertaking. There were no finer characters
in the territory than those prominent in that effort. They were
the leading men among public officials, business, church, and
social leaders, such as the successful and far-seeing Tom Dee,
whose name will always be honored by the monumental hospital
deservingly named after him.

Little then was known about agricultural colleges. Agricultural
instruction had been taught in Catholic schools, in Harvard, and
in some other institutions, but it was not until the Morrill Bill in
the Congress of 1862 that the Government started its land-grant
college program which gave impetus to their rapid growth and
great importance. 21

We created the reform school, the agricultural college, and the
school for the deaf and blind. We doubled the appropriation for
the normal branch of the University of Utah, and made a large
appropriation for the equipment of the new university building on
the old Union Square. We issued the first bonds of the territory to
foster all this advancement . All of this was accomplished in the face
of the strongest opposition from the governor and old conserva-
tive leaders of the dominant Peoples Party that had elected the
legislature. The political leadership of that party was hence re-
formed at the same time, as were also its political philosophies.
This progressive break paved the way for the Liberal Party in Salt
Lake City to establish free and graded schools, to give to the city
the sanitary reforms it so badly needed, and particularly to put
running mountain water into the homes of the people and thereby

21 Undated memorandum, Box 9, Id 2.

143

Chapter 5

save them from the ravages of death caused by the use of surface-
water wells or gutter water to drink. This practically eliminated
uncontrollable diseases such as dyptheria that caused the death of
thousands (especially little children) in the early 1880s. Some
epidemics literally wiped out some families and decimated others,
as in the case of the Moyles. But for that dread scourge there would
have been double the number in Father’s large family. It is difficult
to make an apology for these long-delayed but desperately-needed
reforms.”

While the Liberal Party victory of 1890 was local, the old
Peoples Party representatives were overwhelmingly in the majority
in the legislature of 1888, and it meant still more because it
happened first and involved the entire territory. The significance
of its action is enlarged by the fact that it came from within the
dominating element (rugged individualism) of the time while that
of the Liberal Party regime in Salt Lake City came from without
the territory and from surrounding conditions that made it much
easier for it to conceive of advancing beyond that period of isolated
pioneering. To be brief, the younger element in the Peoples Party
in that legislature quietly overwhelmed the old leadership of the
party. When they saw what was happening they fought desperately
to regain their position of power and extreme conservatism that
had previously prevailed in keeping taxation down to a minimum.
They hoped to maintain the old conditions with only a moderate
advance and to prevail in their desire for the established order for
funding— roads, bridges, the territorial judiciary officials, and the
one institution maintained by the territory, the insane asylum. It
was a great advance made in 1880 of which the older conservatives
were justly proud.

But that was not in the minds of the younger element. We
quietly and carefully organized our forces to reverse the old order
and, if needed, to go to extremes to do what the new times and
conditions demanded. It was thus that a new era of social and
educational advancement dawned in a realistic way. It was the
product of the Peoples Party in 1888 and not that of the Liberal
Party of 1890 after a local victory.

I might say more about the great question over the locations

144

22 Memorandum dated Dec. 1945, Box 13, fd 3.

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat

of these new institutions. One said the college was located where
it was because anything raised in Cache Valley could be raised
anywhere in Utah, but I think the majority wanted it elsewhere. 1
know I thought it should be located in Davis County where the
highest and most varied production was possible. If Davis County
had had the votes that Weber County had, it would in my opinion
have been located there. So the real answer lies in the realm of
power politics. Legislators, like most men, must be practical to be
successful. The population in the territory was as it is now largely
north of Utah County which had the asylum. I was not one of the
real leaders in the legislature when elected for I was only two years
out of school and had been out of Utah on a mission and at school
for almost six years. But men of near my age who during that time
had been active in home affairs were the most prominent leaders.
I am pleased to say that the gentleman elected as our president,
Judge Elias A. Smith, was president of the Senate and rendered
yeoman service for the new cause. He was also probate judge of
Salt Lake County, the highest elective judicial office in the terri-
tory. While we had numerous real leaders, I would say C. C.
Richards of Ogden was the outstanding field leader of the new
element. Weber County was the most populous and potent next
to Salt Lake, and therefore Weber County with such a leader was
able to get its choice after Salt Lake. It was a cold-blooded and
realistic affair in which local interests played a very prominent role.
Some of the best and ablest men in the legislature were from Utah
County and they fought as desperately as any for their pride in the
humanitarian asylum. It was the same in Weber County; they had
and always have had outstanding and able men both in business
and public affairs, and all joined tenaciously and with intensity in
supporting the leadership of C. C. Richards in demanding the
reform school and the largest single appropriation ever made to
that time by any Utah legislature to establish and maintain that
school, and in rejecting the college the legislators would have
gladly given them.

Another question was why the greater appropriation for the
reform school. My own answer to the problem so far as I saw it was
that the “rising generation” (a common expression in that day) was
Utah’s best crop. Their welfare was of the greatest interest to all
involved in public welfare. Therefore the spiritual and moral
welfare of the young was of the highest importance. The insane

145

Chapter 5

had to be cared for, because they were unable to provide for
themselves or control their actions, so they came first. The inoral
and spiritual welfare of children was not secondary, but it could
wait longer. The need for an agricultural education was less urgent
still. Cache County got the college simply because its votes were
dominant in the north. Bryan of Nephi, another leader, was
satisfied with all he could get, namely one term a year of the
Federal Court to be held in Nephi, the “Little Chicago” of Utah,
as he wanted it called. So it was with that kind of log-rolling that
the new institutions were created, rather than standing for and
waiting for just what could be the ultimate best. It is thus apparent
that the older wise men of the legislature were not without some
justification for their conservatism.

What I want to emphasize is the fact that the younger elements
were inspired with the right ideals and determination to do what
was so badly needed as best they could. And they did it, and thus
was ushered in a new era of progress by the sons of the pioneers
in 1888. Once again, it preceded the work of the Liberal Party in
1890.

The importance of the reform school was further emphasized
in the fact that provision was made for a committee of four to go
east and study reformatories and then to advise the trustees as to
the best methods to follow. The committee consisted of the county
attorneys of Salt Lake (myself), Davis (Joseph Barton), and Box
Elder (Riceyjones), with George W. Thatcher, Jr., as secretary. We
visited the principal reformatories of the United States, and rec-
ommended the adoption of the Michigan plan based on patterning
the school on home life with a father and mother in a separate
home with as many inmates as they could care for, and with the
best possible classification of the same. As only one building was
provided for and the inmates were limited, all lived in one build-
ing, but the ideal was to make the school as near like a home as
practical. ’’ After our report, the Reform School at Ogden was
erected. I at once became a director, and shortly after, president
of the board."'

It may be of interest to know that in that legislature were many

146

23 Memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4.

24 Memorandum dated Mar. 1932, Box 9, fd 3.

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat

young men who subsequently became leaders in wider public
fields. C. C. Richards became the first Mormon secretary of the
territory and Mormon federal official in Utah after Brigham
Young’s time. He was also the first chairman of the Democratic
Party of Utah. William H. King became a federal judge, Congress-
man, and United States Senator. Clarence E. Allen and Joseph
Howell also became Congressmen. Samuel R. Thurman, a far-
seeing, wise counselor and able advocate at the bar and public
forum, distinguished himself as judge and chief justice of the State
of Utah. Anthon H. Lund, then a merchant in Ephraim and author
of the reform school bill, was later an outstanding member of the
First Presidency of the Church. There were other bright lights in
that legislature, but those were the most notable in my mind. 25 The
men with whom I worked most closely in that legislature were
Franklin S. Richards, Hosea Stout, Zerubbabel Snow, Isaac Wadell,
C. C. Richards, and Franklin D. Richards. 21 ’

I must mention one more experience in the legislature. I
introduced the bill for locating the capitol where it is now and drew
the deed for the same and resolution of acceptance. At the same
time, being assistant city attorney, I acted as attorney for the city
in the same matter. 2 '

The doctrine of rugged individualism was so ingrained in the
social fabric of Utah that it required a sort of revolution or new
generation to change it suddenly. At least, that which was easy for
the new generation was very hard for the old one. They would have
come to it all right but by slower degrees. Nevertheless, a new era
had dawned in the 1880s and the younger men with some of the
older were ready for it and they acted, and the result on the whole
was justified and helpful. So I have always considered the legisla-
ture of 1888 to have been a real revolution, for we changed the
social thinking of the territory. 28

25 Memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4. In a note to this passage,

Moyle said that the “record” indicating that Lund authored the college bill was
incorrect.

26 Memorandum dated 1942, Box 9, fd 5.

27 Memorandum dated Feb.-Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6. See Everett L. Cooley,
“Utah’s Capitols,” Utah Historical Quarterly 27 (1959): 258-73.

28 Memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4.

147

Chapter 5

The End of the Peoples Party

I was for several years a director of the territorial fair and
held similar honorary positions, but I was always most interested
in elective politics. 1 was a member and chairman of a subcom-
mittee of the Peoples Party that conducted the most exciting
campaign ever known in Utah, that in which the Liberals were
triumphant over the Peoples Party. In the winter of 1889-90 as
a member of the Peoples Party committee, I was present at the
dissolution of the party, and I then announced my devotion to
Democratic principles. I assisted as one of the younger men in
the organization of the Democratic Party of Utah, and at once I
became a member of its territorial committee on which I contin-
ued to be active. But I never sought office until 1900 when I was
nominated for governor. 2 ”

My history study in Ann Arbor led me to the fixed conclusion
that the union of church and state is injurious to both, and vhen
1 returned home I determined that I would do what I could to
effect its separation in Utah. My opportunity came at the dissolu-
tion of the Peoples Party at the Gardo House in 1890 folloving
the victory of the Liberal Party in Salt Lake City.™

Politics in Utah up to the 1890s was not Democratic or
Republican, populist or prohibitionist, socialist or communis or
laborite, but simply Mormon vs. Gentile. The Mormons werethe
Israelites and the non-Mormons were the Gentiles, and the conest
of division had nothing whatever to do with national poliics.
Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans were togener
members of the Liberal Party if they were Gentiles or apostaes.
And old Whigs like Daniel H. Wells stood by died-in-the-wjol
Democrats in the Peoples Party if they were Mormons. And wiat
a fight it was! Its intensity has never been equaled since the diys
when men and women and children were burned at the stake or
their religious beliefs. Is there any wonder, as we look at he
situation a half century later, that the religious leaders who doni-
nated the Peoples Party were terrified when they were defeated m
their own territory in the city elections of 1890?”

148

29 Memorandum dated Mar. 1932, Box 9, fd 3.

30 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6.

31 Memorandum dated Feb.-Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6.

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat

A supreme effort was made by the Peoples Party to hold the
political control of Salt Lake City. No campaign has ever compared
with that of the city election of 1890 either in its expenditures,
duration, or intensity. I doubt that it has been equaled in any city
of the United States of the same size. It was a life-and-death struggle
for the control of the city and the survival of the political leadership
of Mormon ecclesiastical leaders. The fate of the Church political
party was in the balance. Failure meant its death. With Liberal
victory, it soon became apparent that it was necessary to bury that
party. Hence, a private meeting was arranged for the members of
the Peoples Party Committee and leaders of the party. It was held
in the Gardo House, the official home of the President of the
Church. There was a full attendance, but I do not remember
whether the members of the Peoples Party Territorial Committee
were invited or not. My recollection is that the meeting included
only the City Committee and leaders of the party. 32

Again, I have a very unclear recollection of who were at the
Gardo House meeting. Richard W. Young was there as was
Franklin S. Richards who was city chairman of the party. I do not
remember whether John R. Winder was present though he may
have been, because I believe he was party chairman of the territory.
I presume LeGrand Young was there, but he was not active
politically as I remember. 33 There were, of course, many others— all
the prominent members of the Peoples Party councils. We were
there for some time, but little if anything was done until we were
advised that George Q. Cannon, then on the underground, was to
be present. We had not seen any member of the First Presidency
of the Church for a considerable time. It was a real event, there-
fore, for President Cannon to attend our meeting and it had been
kept a secret. I have no definite recollection as to the preliminaries
of the meeting except that we were looking for some clear word
from the Presidency. This we received.

I can see now the view of President Cannon’s entrance into
the large room on the west side of the building. He entered from

32 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 9. See O. N. Malmquist, The First 100
Years: A History of the Salt Lake Tribune , 1871-1971 (Salt Lake City: Utah State Histori-
cal Society, 1971), pp. 133-36.

33 Memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4.

149

Chapter 5

a door on the east. Always well-dressed, he wore on this occasion
a dark suit. He was not a large man, but solidly built, with large,
prominent, and brilliant blue eyes, and 1 think he would have
commanded attention anywhere on account of his personality. He
was recognized as the intellectual leader of the Mormon people,
and not lacking in spirituality. His only rival in this respect was the
suave Moses Thatcher, one of the twelve apostles at this time.
Although both were then Democrats, they later became political
enemies, for President Cannon turned Republican, while Thatcher
continued a Democrat. I am not sure whether Thatcher was
present on this occasion, but think not. President Cannon, after
passing through the door moved to the front of the room. All eyes
were upon him. 34

I can remember only the gist of what he said, but it was to this
effect: “Our people think they are Democrats, but they as a rule
have not studied the differences between the two parties. If they
go into the Democratic Party the Gentiles will go into the Repub-
lican Party because the great majority of them, especially the
leaders, are Republicans anyway, and the Democrats will follow,
and we will have the old fight over again under new names. So, as
many as possible of our people must go into the Republican
Party.” 35

There was no controversy over what he said. I have no recol-
lection of any comments being made, except one by me. I said that,
from my earliest years, my sympathies had been decidedly with the
Democratic Party; that my studies on the subject of politics,
particularly at college, had made me a pronounced Democrat,
having supported that party in the East; that I was ready and willing
to stay with the Peoples Party as long as our leaders wished and to
fight therein to the uttermost; but, if that party was to be dis-
banded, 1 wanted to be free to follow my convictions as to the
national party lines in Utah. ' 1 ’

To this President Cannon replied that it would be all right for
me to do so. “Brother Moyle,” he said, “has some strong convic-

34 Evans manuscript quoting Moyle, Box 18, fd 2.

35 Memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4.

36 Evans manuscript quoting Moyle, Box 18, fd 2. See also undated memoran-
dum, Box 8, fd 9.

150

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat

lions on the subject, and he should be free to do as he wishes in
the situation. Doubtless there are others with similar convictions,
and they, too, should feel free to follow them. But those who have
no such strong predilections on politics should go into the Repub-
lican Party, and they should feel that this is their right.” To this he
added: “One thing is certain, and that is that the old party fight as
between Mormons and non-Mormons must not be allowed to
continue.” 17

1 believe without question that the Church leaders were sin-
cere and wise in their desire to introduce a new era in their
policy, and to eliminate the old fight between Mormon and
Gentile, and that they realized that this could only be accom-
plished by dividing politically on national political lines in fact
and not in name only. But I doubt that they so suddenly gave
up their desire to be a real factor in Utah politics. On the con-
trary, they realized that they held a dominating influence over
the thoughts and actions of a very large number of their Church
members. It is as natural in man to love the exercise of power
over his fellowman as to eat or to love the opposite sex. It is an
immovable instinct. And power once acquired and exercised is
never voluntarily surrendered. Its long enjoyment naturally de-
velops the thought and matures in the belief that it is a right to
be enjoyed and perpetuated. Such has been and will be the
history of man. The exercise of that right is held as long as it is
possible. It was only surrendered to some degree in this case
because it was not possible to go on with it and obtain statehood
at the same time.

Our Church leaders wanted statehood because they believed
in the right to govern themselves locally. It was manifestly in the
interest of all. They also knew their people were the majority in
the territory and would be in the state, and they would be a real
power therein politically as well as religiously. In my opinion the
Church leaders could hardly avoid wanting to be a real power
among their people, because they were and are deeply and sin-
cerely interested in the people’s welfare. And they believe in the

37 Evans manuscript quoting Moyle, Box 18, fd 2. See also memorandum dated
Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4.

151

Chapter 5

wisdom of what they think and their action varies accordig to the
intensity of that belief in what should be done. ’ 8

Gumshoers from Church Headquarters

All of this made it necessary to have influential rligious
leaders enter the field as Republicans. Apostles Francis MLyman
and John Henry Smith were apparently selected to be eiefs in
leading into the Republican Party those who could be let Their
families and those whom they could influence suddenly ecame
Republicans; they carried on the work publicly as real belivers in
Republican issues. On the quiet, the big men (physically asvell as
ecclesiastically) attended conferences and priesthood meengs at
which they mingled with as many as possible and especidy the
influential. They put their strong arms around their friens and
said with such reasons as they could assign, “You want tojet in
line with your file leaders.” It was not necessary to urge Momons
to go into the Democratic Party, so they became so convered to
Republican issues that they were ardent and sometimes offensive
partisans, and the fight became so bitter that many were offeided
religiously and some never got over it. It was a real trial for nany
good Latter-day Saints, who (thoroughly Democratic) hatel the
Republican carpetbaggers and the party that sent them. 39

There is something to be said in justification of their actiin of
making a deal with the Republicans for statehood. (That agree-
ment, I believe, was negotiated by Joseph F. Smith and Hiran B.
Clawson who were in Washington lobbying for statehood.) Reiub-
lican stock was rising after the defeats Cleveland had given the
party in 1884 and 1892. The serious and prolonged panic of B93
made success for the Republicans almost certain in 1896. Aldi-
tionally, the tariff issue also greatly favored the Republican in
Utah. Matters worsened because most of the political antagorists
on both sides were Mormons who tended to treat politics on he
same principle as religion— truth vs. untruth, the one all right, he

38 Memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4. See also James B. Allen and
Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co.
1976), pp. 401-28.

39 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 9. See Jean Bickmore White, “The Makiig
of the Convention President: The Political Education of John Henry Smith,” Utah his-
torical Quarterly 39 (Fall 1971): 350-69.

152

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat

other all wrong. More bitter and unyielding partisanship never
developed anywhere else in the land / 0

We are now receding from that position, and very many are
looking for where they can land in politics to their own personal
advantage rather than standing on high ideals such as noble truth,
justice, and the right. For example, the sheepmen of the state were
pretty much all Democrats, but with the tariff issue in which so
much to their personal benefit was promised by the Republicans,
they practically all became Republicans, not only because of advice
from religious leaders but personal selfishness. This was not so,
however, with me, even though I always made sheep my principal
investment. An outstanding Republican leader who was also inter-
ested in sheep said to me: “When dark days come to Democracy
in Utah, you come with us and there is nothing you want that will
not be within your reach .” 41

It was a difficult situation for Mormon Democrats. “Follow
your file leaders” was the appeal made most effectively by Lyman
and Smith. They were able to say on the sidelines (but not in
public) what the leadership of the Church wanted and where the
leaders stood. That was the most effective and potent appeal these
“gumshoers” had during the administration of Joseph F. Smith,
for the people only had to enquire of someone who was intimate
with the President to learn that Republicanism radiated from him
like the rays of the sun. I want to make it clear that Lyman and
Smith soon had religious officials all over the territory acting as
Republican cohorts who peddled what Lyman and Smith said in
private. It was a real underground movement that Democrats
could not very well combat. I never heard of Presidents Woodruff
and Snow going out of their way privately or otherwise to help
Democrats or even to stay the progress and success of that under-
ground movement. Gumshoers had a very clear field, except that
we who were Democrats and in dead earnest against what they

40 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 9. See S. George Ellsworth, “Utah’s Strug-
gle for Statehood,” Utah Historical Quarterly 31 (Spring 1963): 60-69; Richard D. Poll,

“A State is Born,” Utah Historical Quarterly 32 (Winter 1964): 9-31; Howard R. Lamar,
“Statehood for Utah: A Different Path,” Utah Historical Quarterly 39 (Fall 1971): 307-
27; E. Leo Lyman, Political Deliverance: The Mormon Quest for Utah Statehood (Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1986), pp. 255-95.

41 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 9.

153

Chapter 5

were doing damned diem, and when it was too late to stem the
tide, finally brought them into some disrepute with independents
as well as good Democrats. 1 "

But Presidents Woodruff and Snow did not really serve long
enough to interfere with this division movement. Snow also was a
Democrat as I believe were all of the other leaders except maybe
Joseph F. Smith. He claimed to hate the Democratic Party for the
ill-reasoned fact that a Democratic governor violated his pledge to
his father and permitted a mob to kill him. That was a dastardly,
intolerant thing indeed, but it was a poor excuse for becoming
Republican. Nevertheless, I never heard of Joseph F. being Repub-
lican or that way inclined until after the division movement was
started. I repeat, the only men I ever heard of in the Church being
Republican before the division movement were ex- Whig Daniel H.
Wells and the runaway boy, Frank J. Cannon. “

The result of all of this was that with the combination of the
Church leadership with that of the Republican Party leadership
the old hatred of the carpetbag government was eliminated, and
carpetbaggers and Church political leaders soon became beloved
bedfellows. This enhanced the prospect of the Republicans becom-
ing dominant in Utah rather than the Democrats who had liber-
ated the people from the sufferings and humiliation of carpetbag
rule. That a great injustice to the Democratic Party was perpetu-
ated there is no question, and that ingratitude was boldly and
coldly exalted there is no question . 41

A Review of Ingratitude

A review of that ingratitude will illustrate my point. The
excitement and indignation that were created throughout the

42 Memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4. “Gumshoer” is an American
slang term applied to one who behaves surreptitiously.

43 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 1, fd 3. See Keith Huntress, “Governor
Thomas Ford and the Murderers of Joseph Smith,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon
Thought 4 (Summer 1969): 41-52. See also Joseph F. Smith, Another Plain Talk: Reasons
Why the People of Utah Should be Republicans (Salt Lake City: Republican Central Com-
mittee, 1892).

44 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. See G. Homer Durham, “The Develop-
ment of Political Parties in Utah: The First Phase,” Utah Humanities Review 1 (Apr.
1947): 122-34; Stewart L. Grow, “The Development of Political Parties in Utah,” West-
ern Political Quarterly 16 Supplement (Sept. 1963): 39-40.

154

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat

nation through the anti-polygamy crusade were such that the
ordinary citizen of Utah today could hardly conceive of a time
when politics concerned itself so much with morality. The evan-
gelical gentlemen were no doubt sincere, but they became fanatical
and lost their sense of balance in their uncharitable efforts. The
reading of the Salt Lake Tribune alone during that period demon-
strates that there was no fundamentally American political princi-
ple that they would not have sacrificed to achieve their ambition
and determination to secure the political control of the Utah
Territory and the destruction of Mormonism. They would not only
deny statehood but disfranchise themselves of their right to exer-
cise any of the most fundamental elements of self-government.
They were worse (if possible) than those irresponsible carpetbag-
gers sent from Washington to rule Utah. Not a few of them placed
no limit on the executive and judicial action they would take to
secure for the minority control of the majority and to deprive the
majority of its most fundamental political rights.

President Taylor said, in reviewing the approaching storm in
April after the Edmunds Act of March 1882, some stormy things,
one of them that Mormons had “not learned to lick the feet of
oppressors, or to bow in base submission to unreasonable clamor.
We will fulfill the letter, so far as practical, of that unjust, unhuman
law.” (I have often wondered what President Taylor would have
thought of President Woodruff s Manifesto.) 45

It was a highly volatile situation, but President Cleveland
refused to sign the Edmunds-Tucker Act, 1887, made to supple-
ment and implement the Edmunds (anti-polygamy) Act of 1882. I
am led to wonder why the Mormon leaders have made so little or
comparatively little of this wise and courageous American who
gave to Utah the boon of statehood for which they had ardently
prayed and looked forward to in vain under nearly half a century
of Republican rule. Like the Israelites of old, they had longingly
looked forward to it for forty years in a wilderness of despair. I
have wondered if a Republican had given Utah that priceless but
ordinary American privilege of local self-government, what would

45 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4. See Taylor’s lengthy and volatile
conference address of April 9, 1882 , Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (London: Latter-day
Saints’ Book Depot, 1854-86; reprint ed., 1967), 23:47-68.

155

Chapter 5

have been his place in the worship of our heroes or great men. But
President Cleveland granted statehood because of his respect for
the chief cornerstone of Democratic principles— states rights, or
the right of man to govern himself in all that pertained to domestic
affairs, consistent with the maintenance of a federal or general
government for the American Union.

President Cleveland had an abundance of courage even to
refuse to sign the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887, to say nothing of
not only signing but promoting the passage of the Utah enabling
act when the sentiment of the country (and especially the orthodox
religious element) was so aroused against the leadership of the
Mormons. The previous Republican leadership and administra-
tions from Fremont down to Harrison would not have granted
statehood to Utah. No encouragement for it ever came from any
Republican President. Yet Cleveland did it in the face of the same
pressures and some day will be adequately honored with a statue
in front of the state capitol or I mistake the good sense and
patriotic instincts of Utahns. How I would like to see that day. 4l>

The chief reason for not getting statehood from a Republican
administration was the universal belief of Utah’s pioneer stock and
their friends in the Democratic doctrine of states rights— the right
of local self-government in purely local and domestic affairs. And
probably still more potent was the belief that the population of
Utah was universally and thoroughly Democratic. 4 '

Cleveland’s action transformed Utah from a religious, politi-
cal, financial, and social pesthouse of the bitterest conflict to a
place of peace, social, and religious composure and comparative
harmony, financial prosperity, and normal political unity. For
example, R. N. Baskin, the chief and most persistent anti-Mormon
leader, was made mayor of Salt Lake City by both Mormons and
non-Mormons. Henry W. Lawrence, the most prominent anti-
Mormon apostate, was made county commissioner, and carpetbag
Chief Justice Zane, who sent hundreds of Mormon leaders to the
penitentiary, was made chief justice of the state or urged to accept
the position. Both sides were reconciled. Both parties became
dominated by the same Mormons and non-Mormons between

156

46 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4.

47 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 9.

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat

which there had been the greatest antagonism. The Republican
Party and none of its Presidents had ever shown any signs of
friendship, but Cleveland realized that the approach of statehood
would make friends of the Mormon Church leaders when they saw
it coming, but it was just the reverse. George Q. Cannon, always a
Democrat, became a potent sponsor in making Utah Republican,
or as he put it, making the Republican Party a real force in the
politics of the state and thereby avoid having the misfortune of all
Mormons in the Democratic Party and non-Mormons in the Re-
publican Party.

This could easily have happened. The early migrations to Utah
of non-Mormons were from the Republican states of the North,
East, and Midwest, most all coming as did the federal officers down
to 1885 from those sections. The federal officials and non-
Mormons here then advertised the material advantages of the
country, and prospects of non-Mormons controlling it, describing
Salt Lake City as “once the mysterious capitol of a theocratic
kingdom,” and “one of the most cosmopolitan places on the
continent, a resort for tourists, servants, statesmen, and scholars
from abroad.” The members of the Utah Commission came in
1882 with all the prevailing prejudices of the East against the
Mormons, but even so, after becoming acquainted with the people,
two of the five in 1887, Ambrose B. Carlton of Indiana and General
John A. McClernand of Illinois (both Democrats) submitted a
minority report in favor of recommending statehood in which they
reported both the intellectual and civic advancement of Utah. IS

The Deal for Statehood

If that all is true, what was the justification for such stultifica-
tion, ingratitude, and deception in the face of gratitude that should
be due the Democrats of the nation for giving the long-prayed-for
freedom of sovereign statehood which had been so long denied by
the Republicans and freely given at the first opportunity by the
Democrats? The end justifies the means? Then what were the

48 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4. See U.S., Utah Commission, Mi-
nority Report, by A. B. Carlton and John A. McClernand (Springfield, IL: Springfield
Printing Co., 1887); Stewart L. Grow, “A Study of the Utah Commission, 1882-96,”
Ph.D. diss.. University of Utah, 1954.

157

Chapter 5

means? I believe, without any positive, definite, or specific facts to
justify my conclusion, that representative, potent men of the
Church gave to individual leaders of the Republican Party in
Congress the assurance that if they would support the bill provid-
ing statehood for Utah if Church leaders would (as they did)
contribute their might to secure such a division on political lines
in Utah as would give the Republicans a fair or good chance to
control the state, if not to make it Republican. That apparent
pledge may have been made because of fear of failure and the
desire to make statehood certain. But it would at the same time
have given to the Church leaders a dominating power in the state
of the majority of both parties. I am morally certain that such was
desirable in the minds of Church leaders. It is not in the nature of
man to voluntarily yield the exercise of power. They had exercised
that political power wisely as a rule, and it had proven profitable
at least to the great majority of those governed under a local
government that was practically a union of church and state. I
assert with absolute certainty that it was a good and benevolent
government, with extremely low taxes and salaries. In fact taxes
were so low that improvements imperatively needed when the
Liberals came into power justified a change in the city government
of Salt Lake which was without water except as it ran down the
street in open ditches and was obtainable in surface wells, and
consequently no sewers, no street pavement, or graded schools. It
required a revolutionary change and it was obtained only with
greatly increased taxation and an extravagance of expenditures
that alarmed the primitive pioneers, natives who were opposed to
both debt and extravagance in government, as well as in their own
affairs. There was a real clash of fundamental and opposing
elements, but withal it resulted in progress . 141

I was intimately associated with some of the leaders who were
active in Washington as well as at home in getting statehood. It is
significant that so many of these were Republicans, among them
John Henry Smith and Joseph F. Smith. Brigham Young’s son-in-
law, Bishop Hiram Clawson, was something of a diplomat and was
also involved. The only Democrats I recall now were Repre-
sentatives John T. Caine; Charles M. Penrose, editor of the Deseret

158

49 Memorandum dated June 1943, Box 10, fd 1.

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat

News; and Franklin S. Richards, Church attorney and leader of the
Peoples Party. What is singularly important is that the Republicans
were the most numerous, probably because they had the most
difficult job if Republican votes were necessary. My conclusion has
always been that the leaders of the Church wanted to make certain
of what seemed within their reach. They agreed to effect a division
of the Mormon people (who had always been on the Democratic
side and believers in states’ rights) that would insure for the
Republicans an equal chance with the Democrats for supremacy.
Having made that promise they proceeded to make it good in the
only way it could be accomplished with the result that they, the
leaders of the Church, honestly came to believe in Republican
policies.

That the leaders of the Church had the welfare of the people
at heart there is no question, but neither do I question that they
became real partisans who, like myself, enjoyed tremendously
victory for their party. I also think they were influenced just like
other partisans are, but there is to my mind no question that there
was some lack of that broad and deep comprehension of obligation
and duty that they should have felt as Church leaders. In other
words, they were like other men in politics. But ingratitude is base.
I still think they should not have obligated themselves to do their
utmost to make Utah Republican at its first election under state-
hood. If that obligation were required, then yielding to it increased
the offense. I cannot believe they would do that, but I know the
innocent, the confiding, the devout, and especially the over-
religious were confronted and felt safe in following their religious
“file leaders” into the Republican Party. The result was that the
more religious as a rule did become Republicans. Those who
remained Democratic were very generally of the more inde-
pendent class . 50

I knew many who were as ardent in their Democratic sympathy
and belief as I was one day, and on the next were announced as
Republican candidates for office. I believe many were influenced
by the belief that most of the influential churchmen were going
Republican, which would make that party dominant. It was a fact
that very many religious leaders who were too sincerely Demo-

50 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4.

159

Chapter 5

cratic to change their politics simply kept quiet through all of this
because they wanted to avoid displeasing the Brethren. I believe
Heber J. Grant was one of these, though he did at times speak his
mind, and to his credit he did denounce the Federal Bunch for
their opposition to prohibition . 51

I think additionally that the Valley Tan doctrine Brigham
taught of supporting home industry had a real influence in favor
of the Republicans because of their doctrine of the protective
tariff. Brigham, like my grandfather Daniel Wood and old Nauvoo
Mormons, believed in “free trade and sailors’ rights,” but Valley
Tan production of Utah was a purely local matter. Its support was
advocated because the people tended to prefer eastern manufac-
tures. They were more elegant and fashionable. Our Valley Tan
leather was tanned at home. Our shoes and boots were made by
our own shoemakers in their homes and the industry the Church
created. But many people associated Valley Tan with products of
eastern factories and believed that as Valley Tan should be encour-
aged so should the eastern factories be protected against English
competition by a protective tariff. The two were very different, but
the average Mormon could not see that difference. ^

To Wilford Woodruff

On at least one occasion I should relate, I protested to the
Brethren over the gumshoers and their actions. During an inter-
view with Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, and John Henry
Smith, I presented the charge of the Democrats that Francis M.
Lyman and John Henry Smith had made it their business while
acting as Apostles and visiting Church conferences and priesthood
meetings to put their big arms and bodies around Church leaders
and influential members after meetings and urge them to follow
their file leaders and become Republicans when they knew the
parties approached were Democrats, or would be if left alone. This
so aroused John Henry that he interrupted me, but President
Woodruff was fully equal to the situation and promptly said

51 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. See Roper and Arrington, Wil-
liam Spry, pp. 81-86, for a brief survey of the liquor control controversy of 1909.

52 Memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4. See Brigham Young, sermons,
Journal of Discourses, 9:32-35, 10:201-205.

160

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat

emphatically, “Brother John, the gentleman has the floor. Do not
interrupt him.” But the charge was never answered. ’’

Because of this kind of an experience, I never lost my great
respect and love for President Woodruff. He had a fine adobe
home of his own where the Interurban Railroad Station is now. It
was sufficient enough that when the old Townsend House on the
same corner a block south got out of date, they made a hotel out
of it called the “Valley House.” It became quite popular and was
only two blocks away from the principal railroad station. The
Denver and Rio Grande station was a block south and two west
then.

At all events, President Woodruff was more completely at
home in his little modest home at the farm, which is still standing.
I was called there to advise him legally about his domestic relations
when he was on the underground. In driving past not many years
before, it was easy to see him hoeing corn or working at farming
from the street. That was true when Fifth East was the only
boulevard out of Salt Lake. It was the only speeding ground or the
best one in Salt Lake for fast-trotting horses and pacers. I indulged
my pacing horse there. The course ran from Ninth South to
Twenty-first South.

Though polygamous households varied, they were of neces-
sity plain and simple. Social grades and distinctions were not
encouraged. People then lived on a plane and in greater uniform-
ity. Necessity, utility, and simple comfort were the great consid-
erations. I imagine President Snow took more kindly to luxury
and social refinements because he had the appearance of the
artistic and intellectual. Though spiritually minded, he was not
comparable with President Woodruff who was distinctly spiritual.
I enjoyed hearing Brother Woodruff. It flowed from him with a
rapidity yet smoothness and naturalness that indicated impressive
sincerity. To me, it came from him naturally with a ceaseless
evenness that reminded me of a stream of clear water from an
abundant spring. ’ 1

53 Undated memoranda. Box 8, fds 5, 7. The date of this interview is not clear
from Moyle’s notes, but it probably occurred in 1892 or 1893 during the height of the
controversy over church interference in behalf of the Republicans.

54 Memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6. See Leonard J. Arrington and

161

Chapter 5

Early Utah Democrats

Regardless of the Church efforts to build up the Republican
Party, it seemed to me that the best men in Utah were Democrats.
The Utah Republicans had no figures comparable with Utah
Democrats— all the leading public men of the state at the outset
were Democrats. Rawlins, King, Roberts, and Thatcher had no
Utah Republican counterparts of the same class. John Henry Smith
did not compare with Thatcher or Roberts. Frank J. Cannon was
as brilliant as any, but not as impressive or powerful as Roberts,
and even he became Democratic later. Sutherland was a good
speaker, but not as ready or fluent as William Henderson. Arthur
Brown was not at all in O. W. Powers’s class, though he was clever
and effective, especially as a lawyer. Congressman Clarence E.
Allen was not in competition with such as Rawlins, King, or
Henderson. He did not last long either and was never first-class.
Joseph Howell was just ordinary. It was Democracy in the forma-
tive period of politics in Utah that attracted the best political minds
of the territory and young state. The Utah Republicans with
Mormon origin, except possibly George Sutherland, were pretty
much all handmade rather than seasoned or instilled in national
party politics, principles, and policy.

Among early Democrats, King, Roberts, and Thatcher were
the most outstanding. They had no equals except perhaps Orland
W. Powers and Judge Henderson who were Gentiles. Fisher Harris,
also a non-Mormon, flourished for a short time, but never reached
greatness. Judge Thurman was not so outstanding and conspicu-
ous but exhibited profound wisdom in his thinking and counsel,
though slow in action and expression, with a vein of wit and
humor. Franklin S. Richards was active and a good, sensible, and
thoughtful speaker and leader. He distinguished himself as a
political leader of the Peoples Party of the Territory and never
really acted in the Democratic Party following the dissolution of
the Peoples Party. He was hampered and his influence lessened by
his being the leading attorney for the Church whose leaders were

Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints (New York: Al-
fred A. Knopf, 1979), pp. 161-84; Thomas G. Alexander, Things in Heaven and Earth:
The Life and Times ofWilford Woodruff a Mormon Prophet (Salt Lake City: Signature
Books, 1991).

162

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat

increasingly interested in creating and promoting the Republican
Party. I presume that is what led him to end frequently his
statements in private discussions with “This is subrosa.” His activi-
ties virtually faded out in the new organization even though he was
conspicuous, able, and ever prominent in the organization of the
Democratic Party. His brother, Charles C. Richards, was younger,
probably more wily, resourceful, but always honorable and virile
as a leader. He was the first Mormon presidential appointee of his
time— secretary of the territory. He was and would have continued
to be an outstanding Democratic leader of the first rank had he
continued to play ball. His vital weakness was not lack of ability,
but lack of adaptability, or the ability to harmonize and go along
with other leaders with whom he differed but had to work with if
he was to continue on as a vital force. His decline and retirement
then was due to his own stiffnecked action. "

C. C. Richards did not remain active in politics very long after
statehood. He was active in 1898 as the leader of the forces backing
William Henderson for Senator and received votes in the conven-
tion himself for Senator that same year. He also led the fight for
the primary election law which I did not oppose but had serious
doubts about. It seemed to me that primaries were useful only in
one-party states such as we have in the South. 51 ’

LeGrand Young, nephew of Brigham Young, was a highly
respected Democrat of the more refined type. He was very pro-
nounced in his views, but he was never very active as a working
Democrat of the same period. Again, Heber J. Grant was always a
pronounced Democrat in those days. When the tariff became a
very prominent issue, and especially with the Church deeply
interested in sugarbeets, he became a pro-tariff Democrat and has
grown more so as time progressed and he became closely associ-
ated with leaders of what we call the “big interests” or “fat fellows,”
especially the big bankers and industrialists. His long directorship
in the Union Pacific Railroad and leading business corporations
of the state, and his natural interest in business and acquaintances
with the great industrial leaders and bankers of the nation, have
all made him more Republican than Democrat. Since his great

55 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 3 (Item 3).

56 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 3 (Item 4).

163

Chapter 5

virtue is frankness, he freely admits that while calling himself a
Democrat he has generally voted for Republican candidates for
President . 57

The Rise and Fall of Joseph L. Rawlins

I would like to say something more specific about two of these
Democrats. Joseph L. Rawlins, a native son of the pioneers who
had led successfully and brilliantly the fight for Democratic free-
dom and supremacy in Utah with the support of the first Demo-
cratic President since Lincoln, had as a regard for his inestimable
accomplishment and leadership one term as United States Sena-
tor, and that was accomplished only with the aid of the Silver
Republicans. In spite of all he had done, he was thus temporarily
to be honored and elevated only to be made to fall the farther
(when the deal was carried to its full fruition) into humiliation,
obscurity, and oblivion. His disgust and disappointment was so
great that he allowed himself to pass into oblivion, forgotten by
those who gained most by his loyalty to Utah and brilliant states-
manship and devotion to liberating Utah from the serfdom and
millstone-grinding under which her people had suffered so long,
notwithstanding their persistent and unanswered appeals to the
Republican administrations for thirty-six years to grant Utah the
democratic right to govern itself that all its less-qualified neighbors
had already received.

Rawlins made the manifest mistake that taught me my deter-
mination not to let disappointment, injustice, and ingratitude of
others sour and kill my own soul and die achievement of the
possibilities of that life. Rawlins could have achieved and accom-
plished much in the place of seeking seclusion and developing its
souring, uncheerful atmosphere. I presume he concluded to let
the unbiased, future historian record the merits he so richly earned
for his posterity to read while he died in obscurity. His funeral was
conducted with extreme modesty in his son-in-law’s home in Salt
Lake City, and his burial was without pomp.

I visited Washington during his one term in the Senate and

57 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 19 fd 3 (Item 3). See Frank H. Jonas
and Garth N. Jones, “Utah Presidential Elections, 1896-1952,” Utah Historical Quarterly
24 (Oct. 1956): 280-307.

164

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat

spent some time with him in the lobby room at the entrance of
the Senate chamber when the Senate was in session. He was then
the chairman of the committee of the Senate that had charge of
the measures affecting the all-important question of what we
should do with the colonies acquired from Spain in the Spanish-
American War. Was America to become an empire with a colonial
system such as had been inflicted on Utah or worse? Rawlins was
the Democratic leader on that most burning question while we
thus sat in the lobby. Frequent interruptions were made in our
conversations by Senators who came to be advised by their leader
on that issue. I was accordingly impressed with his important
leadership and his natural dignity that so well became the high
place he held in the Senate and in the respect his fellow Senators
held so manifestly for him. No man from Utah ever sat in the
Senate with equal natural dignity doubled with fitting leadership
on such an important and burning issue as our colonial policy
was then.

Reed Smoot became quite as prominent as Rawlins, but he was
not so outstanding as a leader on a burning issue, and not so
eloquent. It is due Senator Smoot, bitterly as I opposed him, that
he did rise to greater distinction in his field of national finance,
but that was rather due to his long tenure in office, his indefatiga-
ble and persistent labor. He did the work behind the scenes for a
long time burnishing the munitions for the fight, and finally did
become chairman of the committee on ways and means that
framed our present tariff. He did reach a position in the national
Republican Party in the all-important permanent sphere of finance
due to his plodding, persistent industry. I want him given full
credit, notwithstanding my bitter partisan opposition to him.
Senators William H. King and Frank J. Cannon were outstanding,
brilliant speakers compared with Smoot, but neither made the
record he did, or attained the outstanding leadership that Rawlins
did in his one term.™

In conclusion, the state was ungrateful to Rawlins, the ablest
statesman Utah ever sent to the Senate. He was head-and-shoulders
superior to either Cannon or Brown yet was defeated for Senator

58 Undated memorandum. Box 8, (d 9.

165

Chapter 5

immediately following his statehood bill. I feel that he should be
honored more. 1 ’

The Rise and Fall of Moses Thatcher

Finally, I have some thoughts on the case of Moses Tlntcher,
the fallen apostle. Moses Thatcher was reduced from a lighest
place in the Church and in the hearts of the people to thelowest
because of his firm beliefs in the principles of Democracy aid the
Constitution of the United States. Anyone who has real his
defense of his actions in defiance of his fellow apostles anc then
the story of his humble submission and acceptance of the erms
upon which he was admitted back to full membership and ftllow-
ship in the Church will recognize his soul of steel, his intellectual
superiority, and his dominating character. It is also a testimoiy of
his firm knowledge of the divinity of the Gospel and compareswith
the stalwart testimonies of the three witnesses of the Bode of
Mormon who all left the Church but never denied their statements
of the divinity of the book ." 0

Thatcher was a patriotic and brilliant intellect, a Jeffersoiian
Democrat of the first order who was loved by Democrats in Uah
as no other man was, an Apostle of the Church of the first raik,
and a leader intellectually second to none, but he permited
political ambition to so dominate his thinking that he lost he
beam, the spiritual highway. He failed to affiliate, cooperate, aid
go along with his fellow members of the Council of the Twele.
Had he attended his council meetings when he could, I believe le
would have been saved some of his illness, and much of the sorrcw
and humiliation that tortured his soul.

He asserted his right to act independently in politics withoit
counseling with his brethren or obtaining approval or even seeking
it. At the same time, Francis M. Lyman and John Henry Smiti

59 Memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4. Rawlins was elected delegate t<
the House of Representatives in 1892 where he drafted the statehood bill for Utah.

He was elected to the Senate in 1897 and was defeated for reelection in 1903.

60 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. See N. L. Nelson, An Open Let-
ter to Moses Thatcher (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Publishing Co., 1897); Stanley S. Iv-
ins, The Moses Thatcher Case (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilms, n.d.); Moses
Thatcher, The Issues of the Times! (Salt Lake City: Herald Publishing Co., 1892); The
Thatcher Episode (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Publishing Co., 1896).

166

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat

beyond the slightest doubt promoted the welfare of the Republi-
can Party presumably by order of the President of the Church as
well as their fellow members. It looked as if they had been selected
to do the work of securing a political division on national lines in
favor of the Republicans. If so, it was a violation of the pledge to
keep the affairs of the Church separate from that of the state. It
certainly did have that appearance. And Thatcher fearlessly
charged that the Church had violated its word and upon that
charge he took his unalterable stand.

If Moses Thatcher had counseled and sought approval of his
taking part in politics and had been denied the privilege, what
would have happened? I do not know, but I know that Thatcher
believed in and was inclined to follow the rule of the majority even
though he was nearly alone in his position . 61

Another thing that brought about Thatcher’s downfall was
that he lived in Logan in the extreme north. He was never so closely
associated with Church activities as some of the other Apostles,
and at this time he was out of harmony with his Quorum and the
President of the Church on many issues. In fact, it was known to
not a very few that he was a user of tobacco and liquor, and to a
very few, a still more objectionable narcotic. His friends claimed
this was used as a medicine for his serious stomach trouble. His
stomach trouble was serious, but the necessity for whiskey and
tobacco was questioned and particularly the extent to which he
used them. In view of the importance of the Word of Wisdom in
the lives of Mormons and especially among their leaders, there is
little in the ordinary conduct of a Mormon that is emphasized so
much as the importance of keeping the Word of Wisdom and
especially the non-use of liquor and tobacco. Keeping the Word
of Wisdom and paying tithing are the two outward evidences of
being a real Mormon. Honesty and morality go without saying as
being imperative, but the Word of Wisdom is outward proof of
Mormonism. I am satisfied that Thatcher could have appropriately
and safely avoided very largely the use of liquor, tobacco, and
narcotics, even though I have always viewed his weakness from a
very friendly and charitable viewpoint. I agree with Paul that a little
liquor may be good for the stomach and that was especially true

61 Memorandum dated June 1943, Box 10, fd 1.

167

Chapter 5

in the 1890s. Scientists now know that there are better drugs than
liquor or tobacco for the uses to which the two were then used.
But I go back to the days of Moses Thatcher when it was generally
believed whiskey was a good medicine for much more than snake
bites. I was reared in the belief that good intoxicating liquor was
a desirable thing to have in the house for colds, poison antidote,
and a needed stimulation. Certainly it was beneficial for the latter.

I know it was used by many of the orthodox, best Latter-day Saints
to some extent as late as the 1880s and 1890s if not later, although
its use in general was always depreciated and an effort made to
avoid it. Nevertheless, I frequently heard Paul’s saying quoted in
private, and still do.'"

There was, I believe, another extenuating fact in Moses
Thatcher’s drinking. He was of Virginian birth, and in Virginia in
his time, like North Carolina in mine, most every farmer or his
neighbor made moonshine or hard liquor most generally for
themselves and friendly neighbors. The Thatchers had always used
it, and I am certain that if Moses had only used it and possibly
tobacco, for which there was much less excuse, purely as a medi-
cine, it would have been overlooked had he otherwise continued
in harmony and attended or obtained excuse for nonattendance
at his quorum meetings. He undoubtedly excused himself when
he attended business and political meetings, but he was in very
poor health and also had some excuse on that ground. I say that
because of the severe criticism he received for his nonattendance
at quorum meetings.' 1 '

The humiliation and disappointment he suffered notwith-
standing, he demonstrated his devotion to the Church and re-
mained after it all a loyal and humble member of the Church, while
those in the leadership of the Church who were actively opposed
to his former course enjoyed all the honors of the high place he
had held so long among the people. It did embitter him, but not
sufficiently to break the bands and bonds greater than steel that
bound him to the Church while life remained. To me it is evidence
of the highest quality of the more than human influence and power

168

62 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. See 1 Tim. 5:23.

63 Ibid. Thatcher was born in Illinois.

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat

that binds one to the Church who has what the Mormons call a
knowledge of the divinity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 64

Moses Thatcher’s infirmities and natural taste for stimulants
led him to this use of liquor, tobacco, and other habit-forming
drugs which were clearly in conflict with the letter and spirit of the
Word of Wisdom. The extent of that use I do not know but that it
was enough to be inconsistent with his position as an apostle, or
just as a member of the Church, is beyond question in my opinion.
I saw him smoking a cigar in the presence of other Democrats in
a conference at Logan when I was a candidate for governor in
1900. He was also apparently addicted to the use of opium or
something of the kind, but it was claimed that he did it to deaden
pain. That he lost much of the spirit of his religion by permitting
personal feelings and antagonisms against George Q. Cannon and
others is also unquestionable in my opinion. They were leaders in
opposing political views and policies at a time when we were taking
our politics much as seriously as we did our religion. The leader-
ship of the Church was following a political policy to which he was
bitterly opposed and so was I; namely, trying to make Utah
Republican. That produced a friction with which he should have
been able to deal more diplomatically. But it did antagonize on
both sides. His conduct and action generally placed him out of
harmony with his more prudent brethren (whether right or
wrong). He finally rebelled lo such an extent that his expulsion
from the Twelve was inevitable and necessary at least from the
point of consistency and harmony. He would not attend the
quorum meetings or respond to their actions. Illness cut much of
a figure in that, but he was adamant in his attitudes. Withal, much
as I sympathized with him, I then concluded and have since been
convinced that the action in deposing him was justified as the final
actions of the General Authorities of the Church have been
generally.'”

Thatcher exhibited not only high intelligence and ability as a
speaker but also a love of freedom, independence, and an out-
standing courage and ability as a leader comparable with any. He
and George Q. Cannon were the masters of political and opposing

64 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2.

65 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 3.

Chapter 5

views and policies among Mormons, the former in the open and
the other most effective behind the scenes. Cannon sat on the
Democratic side of the House of Representatives and he did not
want openly to go back on the Democrats, but he saw the necessity
of the people actually dividing on national political lines and its
impossibility if he joined with Thatcher in promoting Democracy.
That was made impossible for the reason also that they were
personal antagonists rather than the devoted brethren their reli-
gious office and duties required. Again, Thatcher was out of
harmony with the Quorum. Harmony in the work of the Priest-
hood was and is not only the watchword but guiding star of the
Church. Their ambitions were both for the first place in the state,
and neither could stand to take a place outside the Church second
to the other. Cannon was never a Democratic idol and had never
expressed himself or made himself outstanding as an exponent of
Democracy in general. Thatcher, on the other hand, had to the
fullest extent, and was an ideal Democrat in the minds of lovers of
Democracy. Cannon, if ever ardent, had only expressed himself in
moderate terms. I conclude that he was never a strong Democrat
except on the doctrine of state sovereignty and that for more or
less selfish and Mormon interests. He did not live in the hearts of
the Mormon people as a Democrat as Thatcher did. Thatcher, in
fact, was as magnificent a Democrat as there was in the territory. 1 ’ 1 ’

I was also a Mormon Democrat during these years. And it was
not an easy thing to be . 1 ’ 7

66 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 20, fd 2.

67 Memorandum dated Aug. 1 943, Box 8, fd 3. See also for the period of this
chapter the following: Gene A. Sessions, ed., “A View of James Henry Moyle: His Dia-
ries and Letters,” unpublished manuscript, 1974, CLA, p. 32; Jean Bickmore White,
“Utah State Elections, 1895-1899,” Ph.D. diss.. University of Utah 1968; R. Davis Bit-
ton, “The B. H. Roberts Case of 1898-1900,” Utah Historical Quarterly 25 (Jan. 1957):
27-46; David B. Griffiths, “Far Western Populism: The Case of Utah, 1893-1900,” Utah
Historical Quarterly 37 (Fall 1969): 396-407; undated memoranda, Box 6, fd 2; Box 8,
fcls 3, 66; memorandum dated May 1943, Box 10, fd 1; memorandum dated Aug.-
Sept. 1943, Box 10, fd 2; memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6; memorandum
dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1; Noble Warrum, ed., Utah Since Statehood, Historical and
Biographical, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City: S.J. Clarke, 1919), 1:1-120.

170

Chapter 6

A MORMON POLITICIAN

Under a Cloud

I was under a cloud religiously from the early 1890s to the breaking
up of the old Salt Lake Stake into four city stakes and two county
stakes (making six out of one) in 1904. This occurred when Angus
M. Cannon retired as president. During the latter part of Angus’s
administration, he was softening and more appreciative of me, but
he never recognized me publicly as before the break. When the
new stakes were formed, I was made a high councilor in the Ensign
Stake, and while such was made president of the Eastern States
Mission in January of 1929. Since then it has been clear sailing,
except when the Deseret News violently attacked Roosevelt editori-
ally in 1936 about which I will say more later. There were other
occasions, but I think my being under a cloud during the 1890s
and early years of this century was completely due to my outspoken
opposition to what seemed to be the political (Republican) policy
of the leadership of the Church. 1

I want to preface my remarks about that. It is passing strange,
but not difficult to understand, that even David of old, so very

1 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2; James Henry Moyle Collection,
Library-Archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
Salt Lake City, hereinafter cited as CLA. All references hereinafter to box and folder
(fd) are for items from this collection. See Joseph Fielding Smith, Essentials in Church
History, 24th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1971), p. 602, on the reorganiza-
tion of the Salt Lake Stake in 1904.

171

Chapter 6

blessed, fell to the lowest depths of depravity when he responded
to the demands of that human instinct with which all men are
blessed and cursed and which led him to the crime of murder and
adultery. At the same time it shows that he respected the law and
sought to honor it only in its outward observance and not in its
spirit and purpose. His life was the greatest example of how
goodness and baseness may occur in the life of the same soul. I am
impressed with the truthfulness of the Bible and that those who
wrote it were devoted to the truth. It is more than possible that
they lived in a grosser age than ours and that the baseness and
degradation of David’s action was not then viewed in the light of
today. Otherwise, they might have felt that the good of the cause
would justify the elimination from history of that story, just as I
am advised to eliminate that which has occurred in my life in order
to avoid discrediting great and good men with whom I came in
contact and conflict, and just as I may eliminate the exposure of
my own weaknesses in my writing about my own past, and magnify
my virtues if I have them. The only determination at which I can
honestly arrive is to do the best 1 can in my own weakness, but
never if possible fail to present courageously the facts that would
enlighten those who are entitled to know the truth. Let the truth
aid them in avoiding the errors of others. 2

As to activities in political affairs of Church authorities, I have
never said they did not have the right or that they should be
deprived of the right. I must not hesitate to say, however, that I do
not believe in it or tbink it wise, and believe it is detrimental to the
unity and harmony that should exist in the Church. 3

Periods of Church Politicalism

I cannot help contemplating what has happened and what
might have happened if the leadership of the Church had not
interfered in politics— not altogether openly but in private expres-
sions of what should be and what should not be. Those expressions
were conveyed to susceptible voters by those who were denounced
by me and many others as Republican gumshoers, underground
conveyors of the word and alleged will of God that the Republicans

172

2 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4.

3 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2.

A Mormon Politician

should win. That was most notable in the administration of Presi-
dent Joseph F. Smith (October 17, 1901, to November 19, 1918).
His counselors were John R. Winder, a good Democrat and fine
man, and Anthon H. Lund, a Republican and most excellent man,
but neither were men who would say or do anything in opposition
to the President even if they felt strongly. But then, all General
Authorities are extremely deferential to the President on the
theory that he is a Prophet of God. Winder died March 27, 1910,
and John Henry Smith filled the vacancy as second counselor. He
was a robust, likeable, but cantankerously partisan Republican who
openly espoused the cause of his party.

John Henry Smith died October 13, 1911, and Charles W.
Penrose, a splendid Democrat, succeeded him. Penrose had plenty
of courage, but he was helpless. Then Heber J. Grant (November
23, 1918) became President with Lund and Penrose as counselors.
Then followed a period of noninterference in politics, especially
when Anthony W. Ivins became second counselor on the death of
Lund in March of 1921. He was a beloved cousin of the President,
a far-seeing clear thinker and able man, and just as good a
Democrat as any. He became first counselor following the death
of Penrose (May 16, 1925). That condition continued so long as
Ivins was counselor or until J. Reuben Clark filled a vacancy in the
First Presidency in 1933. Then a clear change soon took place, but
that is a subject for later discussion.

President Woodruff (1887 to 1898), who preceded President
Snow, was a Democrat and honored me with calls for legal advice.
He was in no sense unfriendly to me and yet tolerated the activities
of Francis M. Lyman and John Henry Smith. The policy then was
clearly Republican, but there were good Democrats in the Presi-
dency from the death of George Q. Cannon in 1901 untilj. Reuben
Clark. Grant, Penrose, and Ivins were all good Democrats, except
for Grant’s affiliation with the big financiers and J. Reuben Clark.
Until Clark there was no Church interference in politics in Grant’s
administration, because Ivins was the one man who would not
stand for that. He had a real influence with President Grant, but
after the death of Ivins and during the Clark period, noninterfer-
ence was a thing of the past.

So far as I know, President Snow was not especially partisan.
I presumed he was a Democrat, but never knew just what his

Chapter 6

politics were. I had practically nothing to do with him except
during the foreclosure of the Deseret Savings Bank. I know he
made himself popular with Senator Tom Kearns and his Salt Lake
Tribune by somehow aiding in his election. Kearns was another
who became Senator with no qualifications for the office except a
good supply of common sense and plenty of money obtained from
the discovery of the Silver King Mine at Park City. He had been a
common, uneducated miner. Snow followed the course in vogue
during the Woodruff administration to work so far as politics was
concerned through George Q. Cannon, the chief intellectual and
politician of the Taylor, Woodruff, and Snow administrations.
J. Reuben Clark seems to have a similar role during the latter part
of HeberJ. Grant’s regime/

Fight for the Senate, 1898

I contributed to Cannon’s political Waterloo in the legislature
of 1898 when he and Moses Thatcher fought each other for the
Senatorship. I had supported Joseph L. Rawlins, and his sub-
sequent triumph secured for me Rawlins’s friendship thereafter
and led him to nominate me for the Senate. Cannon lost prestige
when he tried to use religious pressure to induce old-time loyal
Democrats to vote for his election to the Senate as a Republican.
This was an arch inconsistency which inevitably led to his downfall.
The political ambition of Thatcher, also an apostle of the Church,
cost him his apostleship and standing in the Church that he valued
as highly as life itself. So both met an inglorious defeat in the
legislature of 1898, and clearly demonstrated the futility of even
great men attempting to be both political and ecclesiastical leaders
at the same time in a government where political parties are
controlling and voters divide on political lines and religion is not
involved. The lesson was profound: He who feeds upon the
exercise of power develops an appetite and a love for it, and for
the exercise of greater power, and never voluntarily yields that
exercise to another. The Church leaders did not seem to recognize
the truth when they were inspired with political ambition, or when

4 Memorandum dated July 1945, Box 12, fd 3. See O. N. Malmquist, The First
100 Years: A History of the Salt Lake Tribune, 1871-1971 (Salt Lake City: Utah State His-
torical Society, 1971), pp. 178-91.

174

A Mormon Politician

they involved themselves in politics in a more general way. In
America politics and religion should never be entangled. If there
is one thing more than any other that I have recognized through-
out my life, it is that simple fact, and my record thereon is one of
my greatest sources of pride. 3

I was chairman of the State Democratic Committee in 1898
that overwhelmingly elected state and legislative officers, and that
legislature was so nearly all Democratic that it became entangled
in a deadlock over the election of a United States Senator. A large
majority of the Democrats were pledged to A. W. McCune. During
the last hour of the legislature, when all other resources had failed,
the Democratic members caucused and asked Senator Rawlins to
name the man for whom they should vote in order to break the
deadlock. To my surprise, he nominatedjames H. Moyle, but there
was just a sufficient number of those who were hog-tied to McCune
to prevent the election, and McCune, notwithstanding the impor-
tunities of his friends and many of his supporters, refused to
release his votes, although he always professed to be a friend of
mine. 5 6 7 My chances also suffered when Aaron F. Farr, Moses
Thatcher’s father-in-law, charged without the slightest justification
in truth that I had conspired for the nomination. The simple truth
was that Rawlins had been asked to name the man for them to vote
for because the hour of midnight (Saturday) approached. It had
been agreed after days of deadlock that the long legislative day
could not be extended thereafter.'

When Cannon died in 1901, and Moses Thatcher went into
oblivion, there was an apparent end to ecclesiastes aspiring to high
office in Utah where that rule had previously prevailed. B. H.
Roberts’s untimely political experience also contributed to it.
Strangely enough, both Roberts and Thatcher were strong and
sincere advocates of the separation of church and state, and both
had the leadership of the Church against them and they antago-
nized the leadership of the Church in politics. The denunciation

5 Memorandum dated July 1945, Box 12, fd 3.

6 Memorandum dated Mar. 1932, Box 9, fd 3.

7 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6. See Stewart L. Grow,

“Utah’s Senatorial Election of 1899: The Election That Failed,” Utah Historical Quar-
terly 39 (Winter 1971): 30-39.

175

Chapter 6

of Apostle-Senator Smoot by B. H. Roberts in the Salt Lake
Theater when I was chairman of the meeting exceeded that of all
others. And he meant it. It was purely political with no mention
of religion or religious office. He charged Smoot with having
befouled his own nest and having pinned the scarlet letter on his
mother’s breast, meaning thereby his polygamous birth and his
mother, a plural wife, which relationship the Senator had dishon-
ored by his repudiation of polygamy. 1 ’

The 1900 Governor’s Race

I was nominated for governor in 1900 on the second ballot,
with the combined opposition of George W. Thatcher, brother of
Moses Thatcher, and at a time when Moses Thatcher was the
leading person in the party, and Aquila Nebeker, also a candidate,
who was president of the State Senate and a strong, popular man. '
I always received generously any nomination 1 sought from the
Democratic Party. In fact they were all but unanimous both for
governor twice and Senator once, except that first time (1900) I
ran for governor. George W. Thatcher was also a son-in-law of
President Brigham Young, prominent businessman, and leader in
the building of the Utah Northern Railroad from Ogden north
through Cache Valley to Idaho. The other, Nebeker, was a colorful
rancher from Laketown whose wholesome, appealing figure
clothed in the best ranch outfit, with a heavy fur overcoat and
broad-brimmed hat, could frequently be seen on Main Street and
was greatly admired by those who knew him. He later became
United States Marshal for Utah and distinguished himself in that
office. 8 9 10

When a candidate for governor in 1900, I consequently had
the opposition of Moses Thatcher, because I had supported Rawl-

8 Memorandum dated July 1945, Box 12, fd 3. See Milton R. Merrill, "Reed
Smoot, Apostle in Politics,” Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1950, pp. 132-34. See
also the various derivatives from Merrill’s 520-page dissertation: “Theodore Roosevelt
and Reed Smoot,” Western Political Quarterly 4 (Sept. 1951): 440-53; Reed Smoot, Utah
Politician (Logan: Utah State Agricultural College, 1953); “Reed Smoot, Apostle-Sena-
tor,” Utah Historical Quarterly 28 (1960): 342-49; “Reed Smoot, Apostle in Politics,”
Western Humanities Review 9 (1954-55): 1-12.

9 Memorandum dated Mar. 1932, Box 9, fd 3.

10 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6.

176

A Mormon Politician

ins for the Senate in 1896 when Thatcher was a candidate, and had
defeated his brother for the nomination in 1 900. It had been a very
bitter fight on Thatcher’s side. When I went to Logan, Thatcher’s
hometown and special bailiwick where his influence was dominant
and Democratic, I was presented with a statement from the county
committee demanding that I pledge myself to make no appoint-
ment affecting Cache County without the approval of the
Thatcherite county committee. Such action would normally be in
line with his policy, as he was a real party man, but its obvious
purpose was not the welfare of the party or county, but solely to
insure the exclusion of any honor or office being conferred on a
non-Thatcher man, which would eliminate some of the best men
in the county and especially my real supporters in the county. My
answer was in harmony with my life’s ideals: “If I am ever governor,
I will be the governor untrammeled. You can rely on my having
the welfare of the party at heart and acting accordingly, but no one
will dictate to me what I shall do. I will be damned if I will not be
a free governor.” The result was that one of the safest Democratic
counties came near going Republican.

Threat to Utah’s Democratic Party

When I ran the second time in 1904, Moses Thatcher was
evidently sorry and was so enthusiastic for me that he had to be
urged to be more moderate." The same men and violent enemies
in 1900, then, were over-zealous in my behalf in 1904, and the most
conspicuous among these was Moses Thatcher himself. IJ Thatcher
was very active in 1904 in my campaign for governor in Cache
County. He tried very hard to make up for his opposition in 1900.
But it is also true that he no longer took a big part, because he was
out as a top man."

Notwithstanding Thatcher’s added support, I again went
down in the defeat the Democrats sustained during the campaign
of Alton Parker for President. The party was greatly injured by its
own disunity (from 1898), and by the support given to the Repub-
licans by the leadership of the Church. The trend of national

11 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1943, Box 10, fd 3.

12 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, Id 6.

13 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1943, Box 10, fd 2.

177

Chapter 6

178

events was also greatly against the Democratic Party, so much so
that in the following election of 1 908 the Democrats failed to carry
a single county in Utah, and elected only two members of the state
house of representatives and two or three unimportant and scat-
tered county officers, whose election was chiefly due to personal
popularity, or charitable sympathy. "

The Democrats were so depressed and disgruntled over events
(that cannot be related here) that there was serious agitation for
the disbandment of the party. This was the case with some of the
very prominent leaders, so that in 1910 it was a serious question
as to whether the party should be disbanded or not. I vigorously
combatted any such proposition, and was therefore asked again to
become state chairman, which I did, and the campaign resulted in
the election of two state senators, a number of members of the
lower house, and the carrying of a goodly number of counties.
What was more important to the party, it was the beginning of the
permanent rising popularity and growth of the party in Utah that
has resulted in its becoming a worthy rival for the Republican
Party, and is now claiming leadership in the state, having repeat-
edly elected senators and governors and even complete state and
national tickets. 15

Campaign of 1914

As the campaign for the Senate of 1914 against Smoot ap-
proached, the party was down and pretty much out, but I was full
of fight and entered the contest against the advice of friends with
money like Colonel E. A. Wall, who had been a poor miner but
was now a multi-millionaire. He said I could beat George Suther-
land two years hence and he would back me for it, but that he
would not waste money in an attempt to beat Smoot who was

,4 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 1. Actually, only Washington County
voted Democratic in both 1904 and 1980. The Democratic National Platform in 1904
included a plank demanding the extermination of polygamy and the complete separa-
tion of church and state, an indirect slap in the face of the church and Utah. See The
Campaign Text Book of the Democratic Party of the United States, 1904 (New York: Demo-
cratic National Committee, 1904), p. 21. See also Frank H. Jonas, “Utah: The Differ-
ent State,” in Frank H. Jonas, ed., Politics in the American West (Salt Lake City: Univer-
sity of Utah Press, 1969), pp. 329-30.

15 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1.

A Mormon Politician

believed to be invincible. I knew the contrary. And in addition to
going all over the state and repairing the broken-down organiza-
tion of the party, spending more than $7,000, 1 guaranteed a bank
loan to the county candidates for $3,000 to be used in getting out
the vote on election day with the further agreement that if they
were not elected I would pay the entire amount. They were too
uncertain to run the risk themselves. That made an obligation (as
I recall) of $10,000, which was the limit Congress allowed for such
an expenditure.

I reorganized the party myself from Rich County to St. George.
Simon Bamberger was the only Democrat of prominence who
aided me, and with his auto and chauffeur we went to eastern and
southern Utah. It was then that he caught my faith and vision and
laid the foundation for his election as governor in 1916. On that
trip, he offered to give me my choice of place in 1916 and offered
to support my candidacy liberally.

I said to Bamberger on that trip that if I ever became gov-
ernor it would be without obligation to anyone but the voters of
the state. I would not be under obligation to anyone. Those were
my sentiments and I adhered to them throughout. Even National
Committeeman William R. Wallace put up no money in 1914
though he was well able to do it. He may have contributed a
nominal amount, but the record was not preserved. Neither did
the secretary of the committee, a businessman named Chauncey
Overfield, offer any help, though he was a sincere friend always
of mine, but not a large contributor. Wallace did no campaigning,
in fact never did, and was not active in the campaign for me. I
am told and believe he never was my friend. Even William H.
King did no campaigning for me, and never mentioned my name
in the few political speeches he made that did not interfere with
his law business. He made no trips, except possibly one night to
Logan, and I do not think he made that one solely for the
committee. He made several speeches at and near Beaver when
there for trial of a lawsuit, and I remember another at Ogden or
nearby, but his activity was rare and did not interfere with his
business. It was also his ambition to be Senator, but he too
thought that Smoot could not be beaten, and that I would be
handily defeated, and that would give him the chance to run in
1916 against George Sutherland, who was not especially popular.

179

Chapter 6

He kept his good record, however, and realized what he hoped
for. He was more of a politician than I was. Consequently, I did
more hard, grassroots political work in the party than he did.
His work was attending meetings and making speeches. That was
where he shined. 1 "

I say without hesitance or reservation of any kind that I would
have defeated Senator Smoot in his bid for reelection to the Senate
in 1914 but for the support Joseph F. Smith gave him. That
support, of course, was not open, but through the Deseret News and
other agencies at this command. President Smith let it be known
that he believed there was a divine purpose in keeping the Apostle
in the Senate. Had President Smith been living in 1932 and
retained the political influence which he held in 1914, the Senator
would not have been defeated by one so obscure and unknown to
the political life of Utah as the university professor, Elbert D.
Thomas, who suddenly appeared on the political horizon and was
not even a popular speaker. The fact was that Senator Smoot was
not popular with the independent and thinking members of the
Church of which he was an apostle. There is much in the accom-
plishments of Senator Smoot in Washington that is to be com-
mended, but on the whole I feel certain his mingling political
power with that of ecclesiastical authority was highly injurious to
the Church and inconsistent with the pledge made by the Church
leaders in obtaining statehood that they would refrain from politi-
cal interference. 1 '

The President himself was free in saying to the faithful in
private what he thought and hoped would be done, but he was
guarded in his public utterances. A favorite expression of his was
that he thought little about a party whose President (Van Buren)
had admitted that our cause was just but that he could do nothing
for us. That, though true, was a fatal flaw in Joseph F. Smith’s
point-of-view. As I mentioned before, another point for both

16 Memorandum dated Mar.-Apr. 1945, Box 12, fd 2.

17 Memorandum dated Sept. 1944, Box 1, fd 1. The voting was so dose that on
the morning after the election, Moyle believed he had been elected. After late counts
in Weber and Washington counties, however, Smoot inched ahead and won. Jonas,
“The Different State,” p. 331, indicates that Moyle lost the 1914 election because of
his aloofness that created an aura of arrogance. Moyle ran as the candidate of both
the Democratic and the Progressive (Bull Moose) parties.

180

A Mormon Politician

Joseph F. and John Henry was that a Democratic administration
in Illinois had martyred their kinsmen. It followed that President
Smith’s idea that it was the will of the Lord that Reed Smoot should
be the Senator from Utah was gumshoed about the state. Frequent
reports of that were made. There does not seem to be any doubt
that he believed Smoot’s election to be the will of the Lord. And
I can bear witness to the fact that the innocent Saints whose only
thought was to do God’s will were played upon, and they became
carriers of the word to others of their associations. Once in 1914,
my wife was introduced as the wife of the next Senator from Utah,
James H. Moyle. A good sister of the Relief Society objected in
broken English saying, “No, that is Brother Smoot.”"*

Apostle-Senator

I repeat, but for the influence of Joseph F. Smith and the
Church, I believe I would have defeated Smoot in 1914. As it was,
he served eighteen more years in the Senate, and the measure of
good or ill to the Church and the state that resulted can hardly be
assessed. I will say in his behalf that without education, training,
or previous political experience, and in the face of the bitterest
and most unrelenting opposition based upon bigoted religious
persecution, he stepped into the United States Senate and made
himself one of the real leaders of his party. Smoot did all of this
without any apparent talent or native brilliance, but solely by the
application of untiring and unfailing work. It was said of him that
he possessed an uncanny ability to work with figures; this resulted
in his becoming influential in the fields of the tariff and govern-
mental finance. He thus became chairman of the powerful Ways
and Means Committee and a chief author of the famous Smoot-
Hawley Tariff that still remains in force notwithstanding its many
iniquities. I tend to believe the common charge that it was one of
the chief causes of the greatest of all wars, World War II, under
which the entire earth is now suffering the greatest travail. So was
there a divinity in it all? 1 '

IK Memorandum dated July 1945, Box 12, fd 3.

19 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. See Gene A. Sessions, “A View
of James Henry Moyle: His Diaries and Letters,” unpublished manuscript, 1974, CLA,
pp. 86-88, 1-14; Merrill, “Smoot,” pp. 130-32.

Chapter 6

Smoot undoubtedly brought the Church into greater notice
and ultimate popularity, at least in governmental circles. He had
survived personal and religious persecution and prejudice unpar-
alleled at that time. His success, if it may be so termed, occurred
in the face of the fact that he did not appear to be particularly
spiritual or religious. On the contrary, he frequently spoke in the
rough language of a partisan westerner, not seldom indulging in
expressions of “Hell!” and “My God!” and so on. Certainly this
kind of behavior was unsuited in my opinion for an apostle of our
Savior and a dignitary of the Church as well as the nation. It is
questionable whether the Senator ever demonstrated any degree
of esthetics or refinement. He was reared in a religious atmosphere
and imbibed in it, but he was a businessman First and a churchman
second. He was never a preacher or religious scholar, nor did he
devote himself to religious study in an absorbing way. He was
rather essentially practical and disposed to deal in mundane facts
instead of spiritual theories and philosophy.’"

He was certainly a prominent member of the Senate and did
much there for his people and constituents, especially in securing
employment and official places for them. His office was more of
a veritable employment agency than that of any other member of
Congress from Utah ever was.

I have often wondered what I would have done in the Senate;
would I have done as well as Smoot did? I have always worked hard
and still do, because work gives me more happiness than anything
else. I have no desire to cease working, yet I fancy that Smoot
probably did more of it in the Senate than I would have done, and
that probably 1 might not have done as well there as he did, but I
am sure 1 would have done better than he did in some respects.

I really believed what I once said to him, that he had made me
ashamed of my own partisanship/' Of one thing I am certain, and
that is that though not a prominent official of the Church, I have
devoted much of my time and thought to the Church and its
principles, its philosophy, divinity, history (modern and ancient),
and spent much time and money in research for a knowledge of

20 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. See Sessions, “View of James
Henry Moyle,” pp. 86-88, 1-14; Merrill, “Smoot,” pp. 130-32.

21 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2.

182

A Mormon Politician

its divinity. And I have received a knowledge of its divinity that 1
have proclaimed with greater enthusiasm and devotion than was
ever exhibited by the Senator and Apostle of Christ. I trust that 1
may (if in error) be pardoned for that unnecessary and probably
inappropriate comparison. It is prompted by the fact that I do not
ever recall having heard of the Senator expressing a very religious
testimony or heard from others of their having heard one. And
this thought continually occurs to me: Was President Joseph F.
Smith justified in permitting himself to be reputed among his
people to be deeply impressed with the belief that Senator Smoot
was engaged in doing the Lord’s will in devoting himself to politics
and so much partisan activity, rather than devoting himself more
to his religious work?

I want it known that I have never said that Reed was not
engaged in doing the will and carrying out the purpose of God,
but it has been and is my belief that no Apostle of the Church
should be so completely devoted to partisan political leadership
or otherwise engage in that which appears to be so much of a union
of Church and state; that a member of the Council of the Twelve
Apostles of die Church should not make political office the pre-
dominating feature of his life. He should instead devote himself
to unifying rather than dividing and antagonizing the brotherhood
that should exist in the Church. That seems too apparent to me to
be questioned. I cannot therefore resist the belief that Apostle
Reed Smoot’s unfortunate unhappiness and failure in his declin-
ing and final years will always be a wholesome and impressive
lesson to any member of the Council of the Twelve Apostles and
those similarly situated, because in addition to that failure and
unhappiness, he was not loved and respected as he would have
been had he devoted his life to his first and greatest responsibility.
Its neglect brought its own punishment, which was certainly great
and grievous. I hope it will be salutary and helpful to others, and
if I am wrong, 1 will know the fact in time to correct my error— both
in thought and action.

It is true that the Lord moves in a mysterious way sometimes,
and that out of Smoot’s apostolic course a good may come that is
invisible to me, and a good sufficient to justify the injury done. In
the face of all that and to be frank in completing my story, I am
impelled to say that I am not sure there was not on the whole a

183

Chapter 6

divinity involved in it all that will sooner or later become more
manifest, for Reed Smoot filled a real mission and in many respects
it was well done. It is human to err, and we are all guilty. And I
should be more charitable than I am. I have bitterly opposed Reed
Smoot and I did and do believe that opposition was justified. I
would have done much better if 1 had used the butcher’s meat ax
less and the surgeon’s delicate knife more. My weakness was that
I used the implements at my command, and the resources I could
use the easiest and best. It was not clever, but it was vigorous. 22

Finally, let me say that notwithstanding my bitter opposition to
the election of the Senator and the Church leadership activity that
insured his election, I believe that leadership may ultimately have
been justified because of the influence which Smoot exercised in
the then dominant national party and in high financial circles. But
I do not know if the good outbalances the ill effects of thus uniting
Church leadership with partisan politics, something that was al-
ways offensive to my ideals and conceptions of public welfare. " ’

William H. King

As to whether it would have been better for me to have been
elected Senator or not has always been an unsolved question for
me. I believe I took my defeats and disappointments like a man
should and made the best of them. I wanted in the worst way to
run in 1916 and would have done so if the party had made the call,
but decided not to make a fight for it. But King was too bright and
too good a politician to pass up the opportunity as I did. He
cultivated his friendships and did not let the grass grow under his
feet as I did. He joined with Bamberger in 1916, but I never blamed
either for it. King deserved the prize and proved himself to be a
brilliant speaker and a hard worker. He was also a consistent
Democrat, except that he later fell by the wayside by being ultra-
conservative and not loyal to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was
even opposed to women’s suffrage; President Wilson, through
McAdoo, appealed to me to corral him and keep him in line. King

22 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2 (Item 5). See also memoran-
dum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2 (Item 2).

23 Memorandum dated Oct. 1938, box 9, fd 4. See additionally on Smoot’s ca-
reer, Thomas G. Alexander, “Reed Smoot, The L.D.S. Church and Progressive Legisla-
tion, 1903-1933,” Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought 7 (Spring 1972): 47-56.

184

A Mormon Politician

said to me that he would rather resign than vote for women’s
suffrage. I said: “You will, like a good little man, walk up and vote
for it or go out of public life into perpetual oblivion.” And he did,
not on my advice but because he knew that a vote against it would
be fatal to him. 24

Senator King, when I was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury,
opposed our efforts in the Bureau of Public Health to have
government surgeons aid in extending medical service in back-
ward states like New Mexico, where they had no public health
service at all. We almost came to blows over the subject, and
especially over having our surgeons go into such states to examine
school children. His conservatism grew on him until he thanked
God publicly for our Supreme Court when it was defeating New
Deal reforms by its edicts and annulling constitutional laws by the
decisions of the five reactionary members of the Court. He was
loyal to his convictions, but he thought he saw further ahead than
the rest of us who differed with him. He finally came to his senses
in the 1940s and said it would be a godsend for the nation to have
Franklin D. Roosevelt for the fourth term.

As to why I did not make a fight for the senatorship in 1916, 1
have often wondered. It has been something of a riddle to me. My
conclusion has been that money was a potent reason and maybe
the chief one. At any rate, there was clearly a divinity in it all for me.
I believe the intensity of my feelings might have led me into a vio-
lent opposition to Church leadership in politics that might have
been hurtful. Furthermore, I believe my family is better off. A good
name and family are better than riches and fleeting honors. And I
can say assuredly that my ending so far has been very satisfactory.

Hard Experience

If I had been set on running I would have been nominated in
1916. I had the organization with me, having conducted two
campaigns successfully. The third (1914), though unsuccessful,
had lifted the party out of despondence into the sunshine of hope.

24 Memorandum dated Mar.-Apr. 1945, Box 12, fd 2. For a look at an interest-
ing aspect of King’s career, see Lawrence M. Hauptman, “Utah’s Anti-Imperialist:
Senator William H. King and Haiti, 1921-1934,” Utah Historical Quarterly 41 (Spring
1973): 16-27.

185

Chapter 6

I had practically Financed singlehandedly the campaign in 1914; I
had many favors I would have collected in 1916 even though the
county officers spent some for their own campaigns. But I fell that
it would be an injustice to my family and wife especially who always
protested against my spending so much in politics, and she did not
know how much I spent or the protest would have been greater.
Even so, it was not only the money. In 1914 I spent about four
months in the campaign, most of that time away from my office.
My financial status did not justify the outlay of time and money
when the prospect of success was good but far from certain. So 1
yielded in 1916 and left the way open for King. I am not so sure
that it was not better for me and my family that I lost the honor.
The cry that Wilson had to keep us out of war proved to be a
winning slogan though we were in the war the following April and
I became Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Fall. Secretary
McAdoo, because of my campaign in 1914, I presume, and work
done previously in the leadership of the party in Utah, selected me
as the pivotal man of the state. He relied upon me when he was a
candidate for the Presidency, not only in Utah but in Idaho and
Wyoming also. McAdoo, as Senator, volunteered when I went to
Washington in 1933 to go to bat for me anytime. He recommended
me “without reservation” to Owen D. Young when the latter was
in the heyday of his popularity. I have the letter now. I did not use
that introduction; there was no favorable opportunity. But I valued
the letter signature and held it in reserve in case I ever needed it.
I would like to have had Owen D. Young as President and would
have backed him to the limit. He might have been, but for his being
head of General Electric. His political philosophy was mine and I
admired his character and addresses. 25

In all of this hard experience with the leaders of the Church 1
have seen in them so much of normal human weakness that at
times it has been something of a trial of faith, but it was always in
connection with their human side and not the spiritual and doc-
trinal sides which are the fundamental cornerstones of the Gospel.
That leadership (strictly in religious matters) has always been one
of consistent advancement. But the Church leaders have resorted
at times to expedients and adopted policies in temporal affairs that

186

25 Memorandum dated Mar.-Apr. 1945, Box 12, fd 2.

A Mormon Politician

have seemed to be erroneous or at least subject to fair criticism.
When I come to recall them for deliberate analysis, however, years
after with due cooling time, I find it difficult even to remember
them. That is because errors made, being human, are soon forgot-
ten. That was the case with the Prophets Joseph, Brigham, John,
Wilford, Lorenzo, Joseph F., and now HeberJ., who as the end of
life approaches grows in general respect and high esteem. The only
error I cannot forget is their desire to interfere in politics, a field
in which they seem to want to operate in spite of their declaration
of April 1907. 2,1 Should time justify them, it would be a real case of
divine leadership not seen by men of my kind, and there are many
of us very active in the Church. I know more about the last two
presidents, particularly Heber with whom I have been intimate and
(until after the death of his counselor Ivins) in agreement politi-
cally. Politics, and that alone, has separated me from both Presi-
dents Smith and Grant, but as the mist dears and the sun shines
more clearly in the life of Joseph F. Smith, I see the real man and
his work standing out magnificently. It becomes clearer that the
good outshines the bad (if such it may seem) which will be
forgotten as minor error of man. As previously recorded, there
were more complaints about Brigham Young in his later life than
that of any of his successors. That was due to his having done more
and entered more into the daily affairs of the people, ffe was closer
to a greater percentage of the people. But today those complaints
or faults seem mere mist the sunlight of truth and good has melted
away. As to Brigham, I cannot even recall much adverse criticism
worth mentioning. He has and will grow greater as time passes and
so will Joseph F. Smith and HeberJ. Grant, because they piloted
the Church onward and upward, and the minor mistakes of the
man, like the passing mist, will fade away. 27

26 Memorandum dated Jan. 1945, Box 12, Id 1. The First Presidency (Joseph F.
Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund) issued what it called “An Address— The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the World” in which it sought to en-
lighten the public concerning the real nature of Mormonism. Among the assertions of
the sixteen-page pamphlet was a vow that the church was not involved in political af-
fairs. Appearing separately and as an appendix to the April 1907 Conference Report,
the “Address” was sustained as an official statement of the church in conference on
April 5, 1907.

27 Memorandum dated Jan. 1945, Box 12, Id 1.

Chapter 6

Joseph F. Smith came down like Heber J. Grant from the
pioneer period but was more or less modernized. Each was at
home in both periods and with his surroundings. Joseph F. was
highly spiritual and his mind was more studious than Heber’s.
He was also very wise in the considerations of business natters,
but he was disposed to delve more into the depths of hought
and the underlying philosophy of doctrine and the soirees of
spiritual life. His sermons on the hereafter and resurrecion are
the best I have ever heard— the most realistic, instructive, and
satisfying. I believe he lived nearer the divine and though more
about it than Heber did.

President Grant thought more about figures and perctntages,
money values, business, life insurance and the insurance bisiness.
How he came to get along so well spiritually with all ol this is
hard to understand, for the bent of his mind like his consjicuous
nose indicated that he was a kinsman of Israel, or at bast of
Judah. 28

Both men were clearly sincere, honest, devoted Later-day
Saints ready to make any sacrifice for the Gospel. Both, ike all
the rest, were human beings who at times exhibited humar weak-
ness, especially when their selfish interests were involved. Truth-
fully, sincerely, and deliberately I say that I know much ccncern-
ing both men, especially Heber, and am perfectly satisfiel that
finer men could not be found and that each made a contribution
to the Church and community that time will demonstrate was
divinely inspired. I also know that neither did anything the Lord
will not forgive or that I should not forgive, though both did that
which I unqualifiedly condemn in politics. And Joseph F. did
something to me in business that I thought and still think despi-
cable. Jl

The Con Wagon Affair

Early in 1914 I was beginning to contemplate the possibility
of running for the United States Senate. At about this time 1 had
been giving a good deal of service as counsel to the Consolidated

28 Memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6. See Preston Nibley, The Presi-
dents of the Church (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1971), pp. 179-264.

29 Memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6.

188

A Mormon Politician

Wagon and Machine Company, of which Joseph F. Smith was
president. Con Wagon, as it was called, handled virtually all of the
wagon and farm implement business in Utah and Idaho, so it
meant quite a bit to me from the standpoint of my income. When
you hit a man at his income it is quite critical, especially when he
has the responsibility of a growing family. George Odell was
another high official in Con Wagon. He was not a Mormon, but
we were close friends and I used to discuss religion with him often,
especially about his being a Christian Scientist, which was very
fashionable among prominent people in Salt Lake at the time, and
Odell’s family was very prominent. His youngest daughter, for
example, married Clarence Bamberger. I mention all of this to
indicate the very close relationship I thought existed between me
and influential officers in the company. Anyway, I went one time
to a Con Wagon directors’ meeting and was informed bluntly that
I was to be succeeded immediately by President Smith’s son-in-law,
John F. Bowman of the firm of Stewart and Callister. It was obvious
that there had been a prearranged deal, because a vote in favor of
my replacement went through without any discussion. I was com-
pletely flabbergasted, because I could see that this had been done
outside of the meeting. So I got up on my feet and made a speech,
and I must have been particularly inspired by the injustice, because
it brought tears to the eyes of these men. As I recall, I went over
my desire to get an education and my desire to get it in a way that
would not be too hard on my family. I also mentioned how the
choice places such as West Point were reserved for such as
Brigham’s sons and how I had been thwarted by the Church which
1 held so dear. I ended by saying that I was prudently disappointed
at what had been done, and that I would suffer financially because
of the sudden termination of my work with the company. In spite
of this speech they held to their decision and Bowman took over,
but within the year they asked me to return because they were
dissatisfied with his conduct as counsel. I accepted and resumed
my old position, but I never got over the injustice I felt President
Smith had done to me.™

30 Interview with Evelyn Moyle Nelson by Gene A. Sessions, 20 June 1974, tran-
script of twelve pages, CLA, pp. 1-3. This paragraph is Moyle’s story of the affair as re-
membered by his elder daughter. There is very little on the details of the incident

189

Chapter 6

In my opinion, it also caused him real grief, and he tred to
ease his mind by being very nice to me shortly before his ieath.
But his pride, I presume, kept him from making an opei con-
fession. He did so much good, and realizing my own weakresses
and need for pardon I forgive his failure to make it right. I do
not think it would be possible for me to do what he did tc me,
but possibly I have done else for which I need charity. I am glad
to say that I am not conscious of ever having done any htman
being a serious injustice. My tongue has given offense, but was
sincere. Joseph F. did not at the time realize the full graviy of
the injustice he did to me. I am proud of the fact that the injustice
was soon corrected by others. No one ever attached blame to me
concerning the matter. 11

While I was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and visiting
in Salt Lake only a week or possibly two before President Smith’s
death, Apostle George Albert Smith met me on the street and
said, “President Smith is a very sick man, and I am sure he would
like to see you.” So we went immediately to him. He was on a
large sofa or bed bolstered up with pillows. He expressed his
pleasure at seeing me, and said among other things, “I prophe-
sied fifty years ago that our boys would become influential men
in our government and you and Reed Smoot are fulfilling that
prophecy.” He said nothing about it, but I believe he had in mind
during the interview the conflict we had in that 1914 meeting of
the board of directors of the Consolidated Wagon and Machine
Company. To my surprise, and that of George Albert and Presi-
dent Smith’s son, George, who was there when we arrived, he
asked me to be mouth in administering to him. George Albert
said he did not remember of his asking such a favor of anyone
excepting his counselors, the apostles, and those very close to
him. 12

The Liquor Deal

One experience with President Smith in politics that rankled

among the memoranda in the Moyle Collection, but the fragments would support Eve-
lyn Nelson’s version.

31 Memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6.

32 Memorandum dated Dec. 1934, Box 9, fd 3.

190

A Mormon Politician

me was the so-called liquor deal. On February 24, 1909, at the Salt
Lake Theater, a Republican prohibition convention met and was
largely attended. That convention charged that there had been an
infamous and immoral political deal made with the saloon and
liquor men to prevent statewide prohibition. It urged that the
legislature (only two members of which were Democrats) not keep
this “covenant with hell.” The House subsequently passed the
Cannon prohibition bill, but it was held up in the Senate by federal
officeholders, notwithstanding the fact that more than 80,000
persons had petitioned the legislature for its passage. Joseph J.
Cannon, the bill’s sponsor, charged that a deal had been made
before the legislature was elected to defeat any prohibition meas-
ure. Such men as Bishop Charles Nibley, Nephi L. Morris, and
Apostle Hyrum Smith asserted that 90 percent of the people
demanded prohibition, the women wanted it, the Church wanted
it, and so on, and that only the Federal Bunch was preventing the
enactment of the law.

Among the fifty men and women who called this prohibition
convention and participated in it were such Republicans as Nibley,
Morris, Smith, David O. McKay, David A. Smith, and Mrs. Emme-
line B. Wells. Some time before, the Salt Lake Republican, the
official organ of the Republican Party, had commenced an agita-
tion for prohibition, but suddenly quit. Then the Salt Lake Herald
was quickly purchased and merged with the Republican. There can
be little doubt that this deal was financed with money secured from
the liquor interests. This constituted the main reason for the
charge of a Republican liquor deal which the convention so
vigorously and violently denounced. "

Joseph F. Smith had no use for the Democrats, and was as
partisan in my opinion as I was, only he did not talk politics publicly
on many occasions. But no one interested had any trouble in
finding it out. Even his ardent devotion to prohibition did not
prevent him on this occasion from standing by in silence, or going
to Hawaii, to avoid the issue, rather than denouncing the Federal
Bunch for their selling the protection of the law to the liquor

33 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 2. See Larry E. Nelson, “Utah Goes Dry,”
Utah Historical Quarterly 41 (Autumn 1973): 240-57. See Malmquist, First 100 Years, p.
261.

191

Chapter 6

interests for the thirty or forty thousand dollars that bought the
Salt Lake Herald, the long-time organ of Democracy. That story
should be told more fully. 11

Any form of militant union of church and state can only
injure both until the Redeemer of mankind comes to rule in
righteousness and selfishness is eliminated. There is no doubt in
my mind from the facts with which I was fully familiar that Joseph
F. Smith, one of the finest and best of men, and so strongly
inspired of God in so many ways concerning the vital interests
of the Church, lowered his standard of righteousness and
strained his conscience when he went to Hawaii to get away from
the burning prohibition issue to which he was as devoted as any
man. He left Utah to avoid having to deal with a message to
Senator Smoot from his son. Apostle Hyrum Smith, President
Bishop Nibley, and Stake President Morris, the committee ap-
pointed by the mass convention of Republicans protesting against
the liquor deal. The Smoot leaders in the state were clearly
throttling the legislature which was trying to pass a prohibition
law. Senator Smoot sent his reply not to the committee but to
President Smith and asked him to call off these prominent
Church officials. That was an extraordinary and inexcusable ac-
tion that smacked of using Church leadership to control high
officials in politics. It is also true that the three men were not
acting as Church officials but as Republicans. Morris soon after
became a prominent Republican candidate for governor. Never-
theless, they were prominent in the Church. They were three
shining lights in the Church and community.

Apparently, the liquor interests had previously turned over
to the United States Attorney, a Smoot appointee, some $30,000
in cash for the purchase of the formerly Democratic Salt Lake
Herald, which was then comparable with the Tribune (Republican)
and the Deseret News (“neutral”). This was done to deprive the
Democratic Party of a newspaper organ. Additionally, the Herald
had been fighting for prohibition, so the liquor deal effectively
killed two birds with one stone and served both the liquor inter-
ests and the Smoothes. It silenced at once a pro-prohibition and
anti-Sinoot newspaper. There was no excuse for the blessing of

192

34 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 1, fd 3.

A Mormon Politician

Joseph F. Smith upon the Federal Bunch when they thus sold
the state government to the liquor interest for its support and a
small mess of pottage to enable the dominant political party of
the state to buy a local daily newspaper for purely partisan ad-
vantage. He blessed the perfidy by remaining silent. ’’

The underhanded attempts on the part of Smoot and the
Federal Bunch to gain and use the support of the wet forces in the
state went on and affected my campaign against the Apostle-
Senator in 1914. In this connection, the anti-Smoot forces printed
a humorous series called “The Book of Smoot,” an excerpt of
which follows:

1 . And it came to pass that during the reign of the great king
Reed the Smoot, that it became necessary to put another one
over.

2. And he called together the Scribes and Pharisees and the pussy
footers and the conjurers and the sorcerers and a great com-
pany of those that seek for office, and the whisperers and the
vote-changers.

3. And he said unto them: Verily have ye seen the wickedness of
William the Spry towards the Prohibites who do murmur
against him; for that which he hath done is not seemly.

4. For albeit, the great king was wroth because of the praises
which the Mammonites, who were at war with the Prohibites,
did sound of William the Spry, even with sounding brass and
tinkling cymbals and the lyre and the psaltery.

5. And the king in his heart conjured against William the Spry,
how he might destroy him, lest he finally usurp the kingdom.

6. For he knew that the Prohibites hated William the Spry for that
which he had refused to do, to dry up all the land of Utah and
to consume the wicked with thirst.

7. And straightway he called from among the Prohibites the chief
centurions thereof and said unto them: “Ye know this wicked
thing which William the Spry hath clone. Therefore, whom
shall I deliver unto You?”

8. And they cried with a loud voice saying: “William the Spry,
deliver him unto us.”

9. And the great king said unto them: “Be it even so.”

10. And straightway the clackers began to clack and the quackers
began to quack and the whisperers began to whisper and the

35 Memorandum dated Sept. 1944, Box 1, fd 1.

193

Chapter 6

whackers began to whack. Then the swatters swatted him with
the king’s swatter both upon the ankle and on the wrist and
marked upon him the figure of a goat; and they compassed
him round about and smote him with the jawbone of a hinny,
until he was a dead one.

1 1 . This was in the days of King Reed, the Smoot. h

Clean Skirts in a Muddy Street

In conclusion, Joseph F. Smith, throughout his long presi-
dency of the Church, was persistently represented by the under-
ground, rubber-shoed Mormon Republican Party leaders as want-
ing the Republicans to win, and they encouraged the campaign
of underlings in circulating the thought that it was the will of
the Lord that they should win or that Utah should be Republican.
It was that un-American campaign carried on without any serious
objection from the President of the Church, together with the
popularity of the Republican protective tariff, that transferred
political control of Utah from the Democratic to the Republican
Party, even as Cleveland was giving Utah statehood in 1895. The
defeat of the Republicans in 1896 was chiefly due to the popu-
larity of free silver advocated by the Democrats under the lead-
ership of William J. Bryan. When that subsided and the Silver
Republicans returned to their party, and with the failure of the
Democrats to elect a United States Senator in 1898 when the
legislature was overwhelmingly Democratic, the Republicans
again were triumphant in Utah to the extent that the Democrats
in 1908 did not win a county in the state, and elected no member
of the state senate and but two in the lower house and they barely
got there. Many even wanted to disband as a party as a protest
against ecclesiastical leadership in politics. Such was the transfor-
mation of Utah from the Democratic side to the Republican side
at the very time that Utah was given statehood by the Democrats. 37

I am yet proud of my own conduct through all of this. When

36 Undated print. Box 7, fd 6. This is chapter two of the series called “The Book
of Smoot,” which ran in The Progressive (Salt Lake City) beginning 10 October 1914.

The Utah Progressives in 1914 endorsed the Democratic ticket in place of running
their own.

37 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4. See also memorandum dated
Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2.

A Mormon Politician

I conducted the Democratic state campaign in 1898, McCune,
the multimillionaire candidate for the Senate, with whom I was
very friendly, insisted on my using his money freely to insure the
success of the campaign, and thereby have me obligated to him.
I answered that all I asked from the party was $7,500 and the
direction of the political policy of the Salt Lake Herald in con-
junction with Noble Warrum, its editor. I insisted that 1 would
not spend more money than that sum. I determined that I would
not be a party to selling a Senatorship for money or using it to
secure votes, except in a perfectly legitimate and appropriate way.
My skirts were to be kept clean. “

McCune offered again in 1916 to pay all the expenses of the
campaign if I would run with him, I for governor and he for the
Senate. That I could not do and be fair with Bamberger. Besides,
McCune had done nothing in 1914, being active only when he
wanted something. I said to him: “If I run it will be at my own
expense.” And I declined the offer. He had put up no money in
1914 and did no work at all. It was the showing I made in 1914
anyway that inspired him. He, too, had believed it impossible to
win and dropped out after setting the parly back. He and I had
always been friends, and there had been no break between us,
though he had prevented me from being Senator in 1898 by not
releasing those pledged to support him. He was as cold-blooded
about it all as the gambler he was. Though always a Democrat,
he quit completely when he found he had no chance for his
selfish satisfaction. He had so much money he did not need to
count it. And he never after was helpful to the party notwith-
standing his millions and promises that if he were not elected he
would finance the Salt Lake Herald as a Democratic paper and
build for it a fine plant on Main Street. That was his answer to
me as state chairman when I charged him with wrecking the
party.

All that was in harmony with the course I had mapped out for
my life, a determination to win my own self-respect and thereby
that of others. That is today my greatest political satisfaction, a
satisfaction that lasts. The usual conduct of a candidate would be

38 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1943, Box 10, fd 3.

39 Memorandum dated Mar. -Apr. 1945, Box 12, fd 2.

Chapter 6

by some compromise or other action to pacify the opposition, but
my reply was to the effect that I would be damned before I would
do it. 1 "

In 1914 a few sheepmen voted for me, because Smoot and
Republican leaders had predicted that the election of Wilson in
1912 would mean the destruction of their business, so in view of
that and the Underwood Bill they sold their wool in 1913 on that
theory at ruinous prices. I went to Washington in 1913 to protest
against President Wilson’s policy of placing a substantial high
tariff on manufactured products of the East while leaving the
products of the farms, ranges, and mines of the West unpro-
tected. It clearly was undemocratic, and unfair. But that was the
policy of Cleveland also. I was so Democratic, however, that my
interest in livestock did not change my politics as it did others
with rare exceptions. I always stood squarely with the party be-
cause of devotion to Democratic principles generally. I did so
even when the party was long in the minority, and its prospects
for success not assuring. I never had much use for fair-weather
partisans in either party, and I can claim without reservation that
I have stuck by my party and my principles. 41

As to national politics during this period, I attended the
conventions in Kansas City and Denver where Bryan was nomi-
nated in 1900 and 1908. I would have been elected national
committeeman and attended the convention in Baltimore in 1112
and witnessed the nomination of the great Woodrow Wilson, aut
I took a trip to Europe to meet my oldest son, Henry, who vas
completing his three-year mission. I wanted so badly to see lint
there and return with him. I had in early spring, however, at-
tended the Baltimore dinner of the Democratic National Com-
mittee in preparation for the 1912 convention. Additionally I
met and talked with Wilson at the Raleigh Hotel some time laer.

I was there as chairman of the state committee. In 1904, when
Judge Alton Parker was nominated, I stayed home minding ny

40 Memorandum dated Sept. -Oct. 1943, Box 1, fd 2.

41 Memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4. In a move to moderate protc-
tionism, the Underwood Tariff of 1913 lowered duties to an average of about 30 pi-
cent in contrast to the turn-of-the-century highs of nearly 60 percent. To the chagri
of westerners like Moyle, however, it placed iron, steel, wool, and sugar on the free
list.

196

A Mormon Politician

fences in the gubernatorial race. As national committeeman in
1916, I attended the convention which nominated Wilson the
second time, and shortly thereafter I became a member of his
administration. 42

42 Memorandum dated Feb.-Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6. See additionally for the pe-
riod of this chapter the following: Nelson Interview, CLA, pp. 7-9; interview with Sara
Moyle Creer by Gene A. Sessions, 3 July 1974, transcript of nineteen pages, CLA, pp.
1-6; interview with James D. Moyle by Gene A. Sessions, 11 Aug. 1974, transcript of
eighteen pages, CLA, pp. 1-7; Journal History of the Church, CLA, 18 Nov. 1910, p. 2;
undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 6; memorandum dated Mar. 1932, Box 9, fd 3;
memorandum dated Mar. 1943, Box 9, fd 7; memorandum dated May 1943, Box 10,
fd 1; memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6; memorandum dated Aug. 1943,

Box 8, fd 3; memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4; Shipps, “Utah Comes of
Age,” 91-101; Noble Warrum, ed., Utah Since Statehood: Historical and Biographical, 4
vols. (Salt Lake City: S.J. Clarke, 1919), 1:121-93.

Chapter 7

ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FROM UTAH

Call to Serve

During World War I, I was appointed by President Woodrow
Wilson to be a member of the Coinage Commission of the United
States, on which I served early in 1917, going to the Philadelphia
Mint to do so. William G. McAdoo, then Secretary of the Treasury,
telegraphed me while I was at the Mint in Philadelphia to come to
Washington. In a long interview with me, Secretary McAdoo said:
“I want to do something for you, Moyle.” I replied that I would not
accept anything the administration might give to a Utahn. Up to
that time, nothing of national importance had been given to a
native Utahn, and especially a Mormon. I then returned home, and
in August, Senator King telegraphed that McAdoo wanted me to
become his assistant in the Treasury Department. I was reluctant
to give up my business and home, although anxious to be of some
real public service during the Great War. While I hesitated, Sena-
tor Salisbury of Delaware, who was president pro tern of the
Senate, and with whom I was acquainted, telegraphed and said that
my friends wanted me to come to Washington. This was followed
by a telegram from McAdoo himself urging that I accept the
appointment, but I still hesitated. Later, even President Wilson

199

Chapter 7

telegraphed urging me to accept the appointment, which finally I
did. 1

While I appreciated keenly the distinct honor conferred upon
me and upon the State of Utah, it was no easy matter to arrive at
a decision under the existing circumstances. The magnitude of the
honor conferred was still more deeply impressed upon me by
prominent Republicans and Democrats alike, all of whom were
unanimous in the opinion that I should accept. Under such
conditions I felt that I would have been derelict in my duty to have
declined the appointment. The unanimity of opinion among lead-
ing Republicans and Democrats was exceedingly gratifying. 2 3 The
Tribune editorial on my appointment pleased me very much:

The honor conferred upon Mr. Moyle by the proffer of an
executive position in the national administration is unique insofar as
Utah is concerned. In no other instance has a Utah man or a member
of the Mormon Church been tendered an executive position in the
national administration. 1

Prior to my departure for Washington, several of the leading
citizens of the state gave a testimonial dinner for me at the Hotel
Utah. I was very pleased with the complimentary remarks, but
especially did 1 appreciate former Senator Tom Kearns who said,
referring to my fighting qualities: “He never struck below the belt
and you always know where he stands.” 4

In the Treasury

The room I occupied in the Treasury Building was next east
to that of the Secretary, and faced south with one window facing
east that looked up Pennsylvania Avenue, giving me a clear view

1 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1; James Henry Moyle Collection, Library-
Archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, hereinafter cited as CLA. All references hereinafter to box and folder (fd)
are for items from this collection.

-'Sal! Lake Tribune , 22 Sept. 1917.

3 Salt Lake Tribune, 20 Sept. 1917. This statement from the Tribune was con-
tained in the article announcing that Moyle had been offered the position and not as
an editorial per se.

4 Undated memorandum, Box 1, fd 12. O. N. Malmquist, The First 100 Years: A
History of the Salt Lake Tribune, 1871-1971 (Salt Lake City: Utah State Historical Soci-
ety, 1971), p. 264, quotes Kearns as follows: “Everybody knows where you stand on
any question, and you never hit below the belt.”

200

Assistant Secretary from Utah

of the Capitol from where I sat. I thought it was the nicest office
in the building. The Secretary occupied the southwest corner,
which gave him needed adjoining rooms. His entrance room was
larger than mine, but his office was not. The fiscal assistant
occupied the southeast corner room, but his view was not as good
as mine. He could not, for example, see the Capitol. I had three
dignified blacks as messengers who carried paper to and from my
office to the divisions under me. They had nothing else to do. One
of them, the oldest, we called Uncle Jacob. He spent most of his
time admitting people to the office and waiting on me. He insisted
on standing at attention when I entered and left, and took off my
coat and hat, dusted me off, and so on. The third assistant
occupied an inner room with a window on an inner court. Mine
was one of the most dignified offices in Washington, and we
transacted an immense amount of business there. Every day there,
bureau chiefs explained the most important problems. Events
were always exciting.’

Soon after I entered the Treasury Department, President
Wilson designated and authorized me to act as the acting secretary
of the treasury in the absence of the Secretary. The rule in the
Treasury Department then was that when the Secretary was unable
to attend to business, even though in his office, the acting secretary
should attend to the business; and in that capacity I was frequently
called into service, inasmuch as the work of the Treasury Depart-
ment was greater than it had ever been before in the history of the
nation. At the beginning of the Harding Administration, the office
of undersecretary was created to perform the same and other
services.' 1

Reforming the Currency

While I was in the Treasury Department, my duties did not in-
clude that of the fiscal affairs of the government. That occupied the
entire attention of another assistant secretary who was over-
whelmed with the work of that branch of the Treasury, including
that of floating liberty bonds. But he was so busy with it that Mr.
McAdoo asked me if I would not relieve him of the supervision of

5 Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2.

6 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1.

201

Chapter 7

the Bureau of Printing and Engraving with its 9,500 employees,
which was giving him trouble because the chief of the bureau was
mixed up in a moral scandal. I quickly solved that problem by the
appointment of a new chief, a man of excellent character and abil-
ity.

Taking charge of the Bureau of Printing and Engraving, I
sought with great difficulty to have the Army release some of their
engravers to us to relieve our shortage, but some of them were
well-placed there and objected to being taken from the Army. We
finally got some lower-skilled engravers and managed with diffi-
culty and at times embarrassment to get along and supply the
needed money. It was this need for more engravers, and the
crowded condition of the storage room in which the plates were
kept, that led me to investigate the whole subject of issuing
national bank notes. My first real information and encouragement
to do away with the national bank notes came from a Mr. Herndon,
a Virginian who had charge of the vault rooms in which the notes
were stored in the lowest floor of the basement of the Treasury
Building. He was delighted when I called on him and asked for
information concerning his duties and activities in connection
with the matter. He said he had advocated for years doing away
with the national bank notes, but never was able to get the ear of
a Treasury official. From that hour, I was ceaseless in my search
for justification for doing that very thing. I had several interviews
with Herndon, and a Mr. Thompson in the office of the fiscal
assistant secretary, and with a Mr. Broughton, then in charge of
Loans and Currency, a branch of the fiscal assistant secretary’s
office that had charge of handling all the paper money of the
government. Thompson and Broughton offered no encourage-
ment, though they offered no objections either and apparently
could assign none, except that it would disturb the existing paper
money set up, which was working satisfactorily except for the
difficulty of keeping up the plates during the exigencies of war.

Next to the need for engravers was that of steel-plate printers
and machines (with storage space for them) to do the printing of
the various notes constituting the currency of the government. I
found some thirteen hundred hand presses in use, which occupied
much needed space in the bureau. Yet we were far behind in
202 printing the notes. I immediately impressed this fact upon Secre-

Assistant Secretary from Utah

tary McAdoo and he authorized me to substitute (as I recom-
mended) hoe presses, and to place at once an order for 200 to start
with. But this caused labor union trouble, because the hoe presses
would do four times the work of the hand presses with the same
labor. Frank Morrison, secretary of the American Federation of
Labor, finally cooperated with me and that threatened trouble was
averted. The manufacturers had never had such an order. Then it
took time to substitute them for all the hand presses. And the
union insisted among other things that the new machines should
only be used during the war. I agreed but ordered the chief of the
bureau to put the discarded hand presses where the plate printers
could not find them after the war.

As soon as I satisfied myself that the national bank notes
should be abolished, based on information obtainable in the
Treasury, I went across the street from the Treasuiy to President
White (he was the nearest) of the Federal National Bank of
Washington to learn what objections the bankers would have to
the change, and to my surprise and delight he said he believed it
would be a good thing, despite the fact that it would take from his
bank and other banks in Washington desirable business in han-
dling for outside banks their notes— that is acting as agent for them
in receiving and forwarding new notes and returning dirty and
damaged notes to be exchanged for new notes. There seeming to
be no more hurdles to clear, I took the matter up with the president
of the American Bankers Association. He was so pleased that he
came to Washington at once and we perfected plans to submit it
first to the attorneys of the association, and (if they approved) then
to the members of the executive committee that consisted of one
from each state.

The attorneys cleared it and only two or three of the commit-
tee objected. I believed their objections were chiefly due to the
pride presidents and cashiers of national banks had in seeing their
names signed on so much of the nation’s money. Why more banks
did not object to abolishing the notes for this reason and also
simple economics is difficult to understand. The banks, by placing
certain 2 percent bonds in the Treasury as security, could issue 98
percent of the amount of the bonds in national bank notes. Thus
they received 2 percent interest on the bonds— that is, on 98
percent of the bonds, and could loan the 98 percent greenbacks

203

Chapter 7

at the going rate of interest— then 6 percent and up. The embar-
rassment caused by the multitude of national bank notes was due
to the fact that each national bank (and there were then eight
thousand of them) had a plate for one-dollar, five-dollar, ten-dollar,
and twenty-dollar notes and very many of them also had two, fifty,
one hundred, five hundred, and some one thousand, five thou-
sand, and ten thousand-dollar notes. The great multiplication of
effort was therefore manifest.

With the president of the bankers’ association enthusiastic for
the change, I took the matter up with Secretary McAdoo, thinking
he would, of course, be for it. But I had not considered the problem
of assuming responsibility for such an important revolutionary
change in our monetary system that meant tampering with the
currency of the country; this was a delicate as well as important
matter. Mr. McAdoo was then not only floating liberty loans and
war savings bonds, to say nothing of the duties generally of
Secretary of the Treasury, but he was also in charge of directing
all of the affairs of the railroads of the United States and therefore
could not give the subject the attention it required.

Mr. McAdoo never reached the subject for the reasons as-
signed. He resigned, and Carter Glass, then chairman of the
Banking Committee in the House of Representatives, was ap-
pointed to succeed him. I promptly renewed my recommendation
to abolish the national bank notes and to reduce the size of the
notes to that of the paper money of the Philippines. He was not
favorably impressed, and in fact never discussed the subject with
me to any extent, though he has always seemed to respect me. In
fact he has been especially complimentary in recent years. His only
comment when I presented in person my recommendation was,
“I haven’t time to consider it.”

We first met in the reception room in the Secretary's office.
As chairman of the Banking Committee he was waiting to see the
Secretary. I sat down beside him at once, and in my enthusiasm
bombarded him with my big issue to which he listened long
enough to get my views. His only reply was characteristic of
him— brief, emphatic, and snappy. Without any apology he merely
said, “If you are right somebody should go to the penitentiary.”
Somewhat crestfallen, I got away as soon as I could. It took all his
time (about one year as Secretary) to get familiar with the impera-

204

Assistant Secretary from Utah

tive and exhausting duties of his office. Though very able, he was
not an exceptional executive; at least he was not at home in that
work. Then Senator Martin of Virginia died, and the governor
offered Glass a seat in the Senate, which he accepted. There he
was at home and in the field in which he was a master, and stood
as he still does in its first ranks.

D. F. Houston, then Secretary of Agriculture, was appointed
to succeed Glass. Only six months of President Wilson’s term
remained, so he also never reached the subject I urged so strongly.

Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, who came in with the Harding
administration, was a very quiet, cautious business executive who
rarely made a mistake for want of caution or conservatism. He was
a multimillionaire of the first bracket. My branches of the service
were new to him, for he had never spent much time in Washington.

Mr. Mellon had forced on him assistants who led him into
some considerable trouble, especially the assistant in charge of
engraving. But I had everything in fine order and gave him no
trouble. He never failed to approve any of my recommendations
except one— abolishing the national bank notes and reducing the
size of the paper currency. Notwithstanding his apparent confi-
dence in me, he did not act on the recommendation for some time
after I left.

For about seven years he appointed various experts and com-
missions to examine and report their findings on the subject, and
on the sixteenth day of March, 1928, he recommended without
any variation from my recommendations exactly what I had rec-
ommended to the four secretaries. The time passed had resulted
in a loss to the government and banks of many millions of dollars
that would have been saved if my recommendations had been
followed. Maybe it suggests the verity of “a fool rushing in where
angels fear to tread,” but 1 am very proud of my part, and it secured
for me a respect in Treasury circles that justifies that pride.

Responsible for the Public Health

The Treasury has always been the business branch of the
Government, the department into which new government activi-
ties were habitually placed. As I recall, in fact, the Departments of
Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, and Labor were started by en-
larging activities originally carried on by the Treasury Department.

205

Chapter 7

I was surprised when made assistant secretary and put in charge
of public health organizations in the world. Its laboratories were
a revelation to me and notable among my first surprises there were
the number of old horses and animals of various kinds and the
great number of mice, rats, and rabbits that were used in their
search for health truths.

The individual that interested me most was a heavily bearded
man. (This was in 1917 when beards were a common though disap-
pearing sight.) He had a massive head of black hair and was an in-
telligent, cloistered, and silent man who was earnestly intent (in-
deed absorbed) with looking at a house fly through an ample sup-
ply of magnifying implements I was told had occupied the man’s
sole attention for six weeks. He was the only man I approached but
did not disturb who failed to pay any attention to my presence. He
was looking as if he was on the trail of something extremely inter-
esting and so important that he was lost to all else. He appeared as
if he could easily and naturally be a hermit in search only of some
great truth, in this case of some cavity or spot on a fly’s body that
could harbor or carry a disease germ to some unfortunate mortal.

The most important and interesting individual that service
brought into my life was General William C. Gorgas, a public
health surgeon who had conquered the yellow fever on the Panama
Canal and made a disease-stricken, malarial country a healthy place
for man to live in. His sphere was that of savior to thousands of
human lives— a complete reversal of the accomplishments of a
general in the army as we generally recognize the meaning of the
word. General Gorgas was small rather than large, a normal
though extremely interesting character. He and his wife became
quite intimate friends of Mrs. Moyle and me. We greatly admired
him, and his wife was socially very pleasant. The general was
getting to be an old man in appearance and action. He loved to
dance, though his movements were slow and deliberate.

Early in World War I Congress passed a law creating the
Inter-Departmental Social Hygiene Board, and placed it in charge
of the Secretaries of the Treasury, War, and Navy. Its function was
to provide for the personal welfare, health, and morals of the
enlisted men before they were sent abroad or actively used in the
Army. Mr. McAdoo was so occupied with the financing of the war,
206 Liberty Loans, and War Savings Stamps Campaign, and the duties

Assistant Secretary from Utah

generally of his office to which had been added the control and
direction of all the railroads in the United States, that he was
unable to give any attention whatever to this new responsibility.
The United States Public Health Service being under my direction,
Mr. McAdoo turned over to me all of his duties with regard to the
Hygiene Board, notwithstanding the fact that he was named the
first of the three officers to be in charge of that activity. 7

With Health Service surgeons, I made quite a study of the
measure and the work to be done and I had the interesting experi-
ence of suggesting to Newton Baker, Secretary of War, and
Josephus Daniels, Secretary of the Navy Just what should be done-
in other words, suggesting the motions that should be made, and
so on, and because of my familiarity with Public Health became
successful and active in the capacity of Mr. McAdoo’s substitute.

A Mr. Story, a college president, was put in charge as the active
administrator of that service, and a Dr. Pierce, one of the surgeons
of the United States Public Health, was in charge of the Venereal
Division. His activities were extensive and the protection that was
thrown around the young men inducted into the Army and the
various Army camps in the United States was a very great service.
There was extensive literature circulated, rules adopted, and the
morals and health of the inductees were greatly benefited there-
from.

Baker and Daniels were both men with strong moral and
religious convictions and took a deep interest in that work, meet-
ing frequently and regularly and always attending the meetings
of the commission if possible. I enjoyed my contact with those
two splendid Christian gentlemen. 8 9 10 In 1924, 1 attended with
Baker the Protestant, Catholic, and Hebrew Conference in Wash-
ington which was purely religious. I explained to Baker why I
was for McAdoo for President. We had quite a chat. 7 Baker, by
the way, distinguished himself as the Secretary of War and was
seriously talked of as a Presidential candidate, and would have
been an active candidate for the nomination."’ It was his health—

7 Memorandum dated Apr. 1943, Box 9, fd 7.

8 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 6.

9 Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2.

10 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 6.

Chapter 7

his heart I think— that kept him back. Additionally, he was from
Ohio, a popular state for Presidents."

The Church in Washington

When I first visited Washington in 1889 and for years after, a
live Mormon was an object of real and rare curiosity. Generally,
though, we did have a delegate to Congress with a secretary in the
city. But other than that I doubt that there was another member
of the Church located in the city. I visited Washington more or
less frequently later, and when I lived there for four years during
the first great war, 1917-21, there was no organized branch of the
Church there. Senator Smoot had been extremely active and
successful in securing employment there for Utahns, and so reli-
gious services were held in Senator Smoot’s house; thirty or forty
or maybe more attended. As I remember they met twice a month
but no meetings were held during the summer. There being no
Sunday School and having a large family, we had one informally
at home for my children. The lovely daughter of a non-Mormon
neighbor attended our little Sunday School occasionally, and my
children paid a great deal of attention to her when she was there.
She eventually married Smoot’s son, Ernest. Dr. Edgar Brossard,
who became one of the first presidents of the Washington Branch
when it was finally organized, told me that she said that I had given
her the clearest conception of Mormonism, or something to that
effect. I appreciated greatly that statement. 12 She died a few years
ago, but did not join the Church. Her husband, like his brothers,
was not a Church-goer or recognized as an active member of the
Church. I think that is true of the son in Provo, unless he has
changed of late. It is distinctly so of the other two. Before I left
Washington for good 1 saw the youngest son, Ernest, at church
once or twice when I attended regularly the small branch at Chevy
Chase. He then said to me that he had recently had his son baptized
and that he was attending church. 11

To present something of the state of public sentiment in

11 Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2.

12 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6. See also memorandum

dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2.

13 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1943, Box 10, fd 3.

208

Assistant Secretary from Utah

Washington in 1918, I was surprised to learn that Senator Smoot
did not favor my effort to have a branch of the Church organized
at Washington, because of public feeling toward the Mormons—
the danger of arousing the then latent forces of Christian bigotry
and hatred that were then cooled down to inaction from the
ferocity they had exhibited not so long before against the Senator
and our people. I presume that it was his policy to “let well enough
alone,” but I fancied at the time that he felt that if anything of the
kind was done, only he should initiate it, being one of the Twelve.
That did not matter to me. I was indifferent to all that and very
prejudiced against any apostle being the leader of a partisan
political party. I was rather openly pro-Mormon in that respect,
which made me all the more anxious to do the job myself.

I persisted in my efforts to have a branch organized, but
President Walter P. Monson, of the Eastern States Mission, fol-
lowed Senator Smoot implicitly. He only needed to know his
wishes to follow them. He was quite the opposite of his brother
Joe, a Democratic leader of Cache Valley, who was quite as
independent and Democratic as I was. I discussed the matter with
Apostle Heber J. Grant, with whom I was on the most intimate
and friendly relations, but got nowhere. Apostles do not trespass
upon the preserves of fellow apostles. I found they showed great
deference to their fellow officers and especially to the First Presi-
dency. Unity was their watchword. I was greatly surprised later
when president of the Eastern States Mission myself to find all
of the letters received from the President of the Church also
signed by both counselors if present. That, I understand, contin-
ued to be the rule until the present administration. President J.
Reuben Clark, I understand, is credited with being responsible
for that change of policy. It seems practical, but the old rule did
promote the idea of unity. 14 When President Grant came to
Washington, I took the matter up with him again and urged still
more strongly, but I received the same answer— that it was con-
trary to the policy of the Church not to respect greatly the advice
of an apostle in matters affecting the welfare of the Church in
which he was more familiar and interested than any other of the

14 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6.

Chapter 7

general authorities. This again seemed to be final and dependent
on the Senator. 15

I waited somewhat impatiently. “All things come to him who
waits.” Then George W. McCune of Ogden (now in Los Angeles)
became president of the mission. He was an ardent Democrat
sympathizing with my ideas of both religion and politics who
consulted Senator Smoot no more than he had to, if at all, on the
subject."’ I took the matter up with him on his first visit and he was
most favorable and worked the problem out satisfactorily to all so
far as I know. Just how Senator Smoot felt I do not know, except
that he yielded gracefully to the inevitable. The need for it was
clear as it had always been. 17

The branch was soon organized and a Sunday School followed,
with an attendance (as I remember) of about a hundred or more.
We had a delightful time together meeting in the Masonic rooms
on the street between Connecticut Avenue and Eighteenth or
Nineteenth Streets. Then followed the ordinations and organiza-
tions of the Priesthood, which so far as 1 know was completely
dormant before, except that the Sacrament was administered.

An Apostle in the Senate

The attendance at the meetings was doubled and I think soon
tripled. Not a few had refused to go to the Smoot residence for
any purpose unless it was death, and I do not remember a death
being honored there or elsewhere in Washington. Senator King
said he would not go there and did not when I was there. Solely
from a sense of religious duly, 1 did go and Senator Smoot was
gentlemanly if not brotherly, but not congenial or cordial. His wife,
a schoolmate of my wife and social intimate before marriage, in
fact so intimate that they were accustomed to sleep together in
their respective homes, was absolutely freezing, not even so good
as chilly to both of us. His forced cordiality was absolutely unchris-
tian. My wife and I were both ignored in church so far as possible.
We never received even a friendly greeting, but a good Smoot
Republican, preceding or following us, was gushingly received.

210

15 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1943, Box 10, fd 3.

16 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6.

17 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1943, Box 10, fd 3.

Assistant Secretary from Utah

Mrs. Smoot manifestly did not even want us there. We were to all
appearances a thorn in her flesh. They are both dead and I hate
to say this but I must, especially when I think of a Mormon Apostle
coming the nearest to any member of the Church to being an
actual national leader of the dominant party of the greatest nation
on earth or that ever was on the earth. I am also reliably informed
that before his death he said to a mutual friend that he respected
me much more than he did one of his other rivals for the Senate
because I fought in the open. But such has been the end (which I
was glad to witness) of a period of almost insane partisanship that
wrecked brotherhood and old friendships. My own intense devo-
tion to my party was one of my weaknesses as well as sources of
success, because I always received generously any favor I sought
from the Democratic Party.

While Senator Smoot and I were always on speaking terms,
there was no love lost on either side for the other. We were bitter
political opponents, so neither called on the other and we were
not at all sociable with each other though we were far from home.
I know of no other such relationship in my life. That, for example,
was not true as to former Senator George Sutherland, for we were
somewhat more sociable due to our having been college room-
mates and bed-fellows. I visited him on rare occasions in his office
but never visited Senator Smoot, all of which was due to the
intensity of the prevailing political partisanship in Utah. I doubt
that it was ever exceeded anywhere— or at any time. No killings,
however, resulted from it. But otherwise friendly relations were
strained to the limit. Mormons were inclined to be about as serious
about their political convictions as their religious convictions. 1
certainly was, and so were the Mormons generally after they got
well-settled in their convictions. My seriousness increased because
I was indignant over so many Saints becoming Republicans over-
night at the suggestion and appeal of their religious leaders. 1 "

I recognize that I was never intimate with the Senator or knew
him beyond his life as Senator. To me he was simply a candidate
for the United States Senate out of the darkness of the firmament,
all of a sudden. I had never known anything of his prior political
activities. So to me, a keen observer of political events, his entrance

18 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6.

211

Chapter 7

into political life was purely meteoric. I had never even head but
little of his religious activities. It was said of him, for exampl, that
he did not distinguish himself as a missionary in Englari. He
evidently spent his time in the office of the mission tendig to
business matters for which he was well-fitted, and did not corplete
his mission due to a call from home on the death of his fathc. He
then became the successful manager of the Provo Woolen Mis of
the Church, and that was his conspicuous achievement whn he
was elected Senator, because he had certainly not distingished
himself as an Apostle.

I have no doubt that a man whose dominating instincts fihim
only for cold-blooded business and partisan politics (as I btieve
was the case with Smoot) cannot fill the role of an Apostle c the
Lord at the same time. Again, here was an Apostle who never .em-
onstrated the first sign of love or even cordiality for me, a briher
in the Gospel. I regret to say that I was not much better, but did
want to be more friendly in Washington than he probably didbut
he never made the slightest effort while I did. One day, the Sena-
tor, President Grant, and Congressman Milton H. Welling visted
my office (I do not recall for what purpose) and I was delighted ind
surprised to see Smoot in my office with the others. I was anxbus
to make a friend of him and hastened to say so. Unfortunately,
however, without first indicating sufficiently my friendly intuitbn,
I said: “Senator, your partisanship has made me ashamed of my
own ...” He did not wait for me to finish the sentence and instantly
jumped up and walked out, and the other two followed him in spite
of my appeal for them to remain. I was never more surprised in my
life. In fact I was stunned and chagrined beyond measure for hav-
ing spoiled the only opportunity (if it was one) at reconciliation.
With reasonable promptness thereafter, I do not remember how
long, I telephoned the Senator expressing my regrets and good in-
tentions and asked for an interview which he granted. I related to
him my regret for our lack of cordial relations and my failure to
make that clear when he called and that I did desire a better under-
standing. I told him that my differences with him were purely po-
litical and not otherwise personal or unfriendly. He appeared
pleased and willing to be agreeable, but was not warm or very
hearty in any of his expressions. Our relations thereafter were not
212 materially changed, though I always thought he was a little more

Assistant Secretary from Utah

cordial, but it was not distinctly so. I was told, however, by a mutual
friend that the Senator sometime after said to him that he had a
good deal more respect for me that he did for Welling because he
believed that I was open and on the square, or above board. He
probably expected more from Welling, for when he was elected he
was a stake president.

To Smoot’s credit he rose to great power and influence in
Washington and was noted for his industry and attention to
business. My attention was first called to these facts in a very
striking and impressive way. I was in a conversation with several
of the important governors of the first Federal Reserve Board. We
wanted something done in Congress. I think it was Governor
William Harding who said, “If we could get Senator Smoot inter-
ested, it would be put over.” That really surprised me. It would
have been an equal surprise for them to know that my influence
with him would have been less than that of any of them. I do not
recall whether anything was said on that subject or not, but my
presence probably suggested Smoot. Obviously, I never traveled
on my credit with Smoot. Our relations soon became known to my
intimates, and this was early in my presence there. I do not recall
ever having asked him for a favor, or vice versa.

On one of the very serious occasions in the Senate during
World War I, Smoot either voluntarily or on request offered a
notable prayer in the Senate. While he rarely got on to religious
subjects in a public way, I believe he did in private conversation.
In my first interview with Franklin Roosevelt when on my mission
and he was governor, he related having had an informative con-
versation with the Senator about the Church. That was in connec-
tion with his statement to me that the Mormon Church followed
the scriptures more closely than any other church.

The Senator, although we lived near his home during our four
years in Washington, never called on us or suggested a call from
us, although there had never been a personal difference between
any of the four of us. On one occasion during the first months of
our residence in Washington the Senator walked past our home
when we were sitting on the porch not far from the sidewalk. I
fancy he did not know where we lived or he would not have walked
past our door. But he saw us (could not avoid it), nodded his head,
and emotionlessly walked on without a word as if he had no

213

Chapter 7

thought of stopping a moment or any interest in us, although we
responded very appropriately but did not rush out to stop hint. He
certainly did not invite it. He was never in our home nor was his
wife. He was in Salt Lake City when we celebrated our fiftieth
wedding anniversary to which we invited him and a large number
of guests. Most of the leading Church officials were present; the
First Presidency and even the President of the Twelve, Rudger
Clawson, were there, although Clawson had never before been in
our home. (He was unpopular with the Dinwoodeys due to his
divorce from Mrs. Moyle’s sister.) It was a notable event held at
the homes and on the beautiful and extensive grounds of our sons
Henry and Gilbert on the farm in Cottonwood on the Highland
Drive in 1937 when we were again living in Washington. The
Smoots did not come, and offered no apology.

Smoot never at any time showed or indicated any desire to be
friendly even when I became somewhat popular with the other
Church leaders generally and was out of politics for good and all
because of age and retirement, and the past was being forgotten.
He died in February 1942, and I retired in 1940 (July 19), and thus
ended anything but a Christian, brotherly, or religious relation-
ship. So far as 1 know or have occasion to think I was not an
exception among those who fought him vigorously in politics, and
while severe I did not go as far as B. H. Roberts and some others.
I do not know or have never heard that he claimed the contrary.
All three of his sons, both by action and words, indicated clearly a
real respect for me. One son who lived in Provo has always been
very cordial with me. He repeatedly stepped out of his way in Salt
Lake and in Provo to speak to me in a very friendly way, the last
time early this year or late last year. He stopped me with a hearty
greeting and said in the conversation that followed: “I have always
highly respected you.” I in return have always liked him. Our more
than mere acquaintance commenced when with Henry I chanced
to sit beside him at a football game in Provo, during which we
chatted freely and I thought he was a very nice chap. The compli-
ment which he went out of his way to make led me to think that
the Senator must have spoken more favorably of me to them than
I presumed he would. At all events, as I have said before, as time
has passed into my eighties there is a growing feeling that if I knew
more of what the Senator actually did and said I would have greater

214

Assistant Secretary from Utah

respect for him and greater appreciation for what he did and less
appreciation for what I have condemned. But I have many times
thought that the Lord had nothing to do with his being made an
Apostle or Senator and I have a growing belief rather than disbelief
that the Lord after all did probably have something to do with it. 19

To Defeat Senator Smoot?

Notwithstanding my desire to retire from full-time public life,
my opposition to Smoot almost led me into a campaign for the
Senate again in 1920. To demonstrate my state of mind at the time,
I include the following excerpts from a letter I wrote to my brother
Stephen on April 24, 1920:

“I am sorry that your political vision is narrowed down to an
interest in two individuals. If I considered self-interest only, I
would avoid the possibility of my being a candidate for any office,
for the reason that it is not only extremely expensive, but to go
through a campaign as I did six years ago and probably would again
if I became a candidate, either for the Senate or Governor, it would
involve a most trying ordeal and one which my nerves may not
support.

“My health is excellent, everybody speaks of how well I look,
but my nerves have not fully recovered from the operation I went
through a year ago. I have thought for six years that my nerves
were more or less impaired by the ordeal through which I went six
years ago. Then we had a very imperfect organization, new county
officers, and very little help from the other state candidates. On
all sides, it was generally believed that I was making a fight against
inevitable defeat.

“Now the situation is quite different, although the sentiment
seems to be that it would be difficult to defeat Senator Smoot,
and that idea will probably constitute our greatest obstacle to
success in the coming campaign. As that idea, however, is being
circulated, it makes me more inclined to get into the fight for
all I am worth. If I know myself, I will be guided by a sense of
duty to the state and my friends, rather than subserving my
personal wishes.

“I feel the honors obtained already are as much as I deserve

19 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1943, Box 10, fd 3.

Chapter 7

and they should be enough, especially as I am assured that if I want
to try for further honors I will have the confidence and support of
my old friends and the party that has stood so solidly behind me
for over twenty years. I consider that the crowning compliment of
my life.

Exchange with President Grant over Smoot

Just a few days later, I was deeply chagrined to read in the
Washington newspapers that President Grant had endorsed Sena-
tor Smoot’s candidacy. I consequently wrote the following letter
to my intimate friend, as I had always considered him to be:

“Dear President Grant:

“I enclose a clipping from Thursday’s Washington Post, contain-
ing a front page article written by its special correspondent, John
Callan O’Laughlin. The article has attracted much attention and
caused inquiries from prominent men. I take the statements so far
as they relate to you, to be correct, because they are consistent with
statements you made while here, and are corroborated by numer-
ous letters from home advising me of the extraordinary Republi-
can campaign being carried on in Senator Smoot’s interest, and
particularly the importance of your position on the subject, and
the extent to which the columns of the Deseret News are open to
the press agent of the Senator.

“You will see the writer says that you have stated to friends
that ‘you will support Smoot’s renomination and reelection’, and
that you said to him: ‘I am a Democrat, but I appreciate Senator
Smoot’s unusual qualifications and the desirability of having in the
Senate in this time of reconstruction, a man of his attainments.’

“I have hoped that the President of the Church in particular,
and the Apostles, because of their peculiar and exclusive claim of
Divine guidance in matters relating to the welfare of all the people
would as a rule at least, avoid partisan politics, unless the occasion
really warranted their coming down from the exalted plane on
which so many of the people place them and participating in the
discord, if not bitterness, of partisan politics. As you know, such
has always been my hope, even if a Democrat should become the

216

20 James H. Moyle to Stephen Moyle, 24 Apr. 1920, Box 2, fd 5.

Assistant Secretary from Utah

President, and consequently my disappointment when I find that
your utterances are drawn into the campaign, which from the
extraordinary efforts being made by the Republicans so early,
indicates that it is to be a contest of the first magnitude.

“This unfortunate condition appears to my mind to be magni-
fied when such a course is taken by one who makes prominent the
fact that he is a Democrat, and notwithstanding all that supports
a man who is himself, as you well know, so intensely partisan. One
who has persistently opposed everything Democratic, as if it were
because it was Democratic. One who has opposed practically every
measure of relief to the many, every progressive reform proposed,
both in Utah and the Nation, indeed one who has, by his consistent
support of everything the favored classes have wanted, gained their
unqualified support and naturally has earned the disapproval of
those who are called the laboring classes.

“Even the Republican correspondent to whom you gave your
interview, O’Laughlin, says ‘The Senator has the business interests
with him, and it is in laboring circles only that he is weak.’ The
importance of the latter he attempts to minimize by suggesting it
is with the Democratic party anyhow.

“In the same connection, I call attention to the editorial
recently appearing in the Deseret News, quoting in black type an
editorial from the New York Post [sic] applauding Senator Smoot,
to which the Deseret News editor adds the unqualified endorsement
and approval of the paper, with the statement that the editorial of
the Post come with greater force because it is an independent
Democratic paper. As a matter of fact, that paper is owned by Thos.
W. Lamont, 23 Broadway, New York, the home office of J. P.
Morgan & Co.

“A few days before the News heralded the coming of a letter,
and subsequently published it, from Mr. Leighton, an engineer,
with a long residence in Washington where he was deprived of the
privilege of participating in politics, but on account of the great
usefulness of Senator Smoot he patriotically writes a long letter in
which he emphasizes his lack of interest or knowledge about Utah
affairs, except the great value of the services of our senior Senator.
Upon inquiry, I was reliably informed that the gentleman is a
$10,000 a year employee of the Utah Light & Power Co., of Salt

217

Chapter 7

Lake City. Well may Mr. Leighton say that the Senator has the big
interests behind him, but not the little interest of the many!

“Permit me also to call attention to a few of the many evidences
of the hroad, liberal, constructive Democratic statesmanship of the
man you say is so well equipped for performing signal service. He
opposed the direct election of Senators by the people, making it
possible to tax incomes which might compel wealth to contribute
from its abundance and deprived it of the power to corruptly
control the United States Senate. He also opposed or voted against
practically all of the important constructive, beneficial democratic
legislation enacted during the past seven years, including the
Federal Reserve banking and currency system which dethroned
the power of Wall Street, in its control of the money and banking
system of the country and but for which the great war could not
have been won and the most destructive of all panics avoided. He
favored a high, protective tariff on the necessities of life. He
opposed the revision of the tariff downward. He predicted that by
such revision, that industries of the country would be ruined. Thus,
while opposing everything Democratic, his devotion to everything
Republican has been slavish in the extreme, even to the following
of the Republican leaders in their opposition to the League of
Nations, and their conspiracy to destroy the prestige and world
leadership of the President of the United States because he was a
Democrat. Hence the difficulty in understanding why a Democrat
should want such a partisan reelected.

“It will be said that Senator Smoot opposed the League of
Nations without reservations at a time when it was unpopular to
do so, but if you still bear in mind the extraordinary popularity of
the President, due to the unparalleled reforms and constructive
legislation accomplished under his leadership, with the consistent
opposition of the Senator, crowned with his becoming the recog-
nized spokesman of the liberty-loving of all nations, and the world
leader in the establishment of an international tribunal calculated
to promote eternal peace, which movement was regarded as the
realization of a great inspired idea.

“You must realize that without the successful leadership of
Woodrow Wilson in the termination of the great war and unpar-
alleled accomplishments of his administration being in some way
218 obscured, there was no hope of political success for the Republican

Assistant Secretary from Utah

party in the pending National election, and therefore the round
robin of the Republican side of the Senate, followed with the
manifest determination to talk to death and obscure the League
of Nations and destroy the influence of the President, with eight
months of villainous misrepresentation, hairsplitting sophistries,
and inflated fears.

“You will recall that Senator Smoot when in Utah last summer
said that the amendments which the President had secured to the
first draft of the treaty and league which he brought back from
Europe, met his objections and that he could then support the
league as amended, but on his return to Washington he found that
Republican leaders had determined that that was not enough, and
then he joined with them in supporting, although he never openly
expressed his opposition except by his vote in the United States
Senate. This statesman’s voice was not heard there on that greatest
of all questions, one way or the other, but he subserviently followed
Republican leadership throughout. His leadership in Utah politics
resulted in the State being one of the most reactionary and
undemocratic in the Union. Then on the moral issue of prohibi-
tion, it was not until the last hope of saving it was gone that he
deserted his great ally, the liquor interest.

“If his attitude on any of the great constructive issues that have
been presented to the country had been in any sense consistent
with the views of a Democrat, your attitude would not be so surpris-
ing. You would do me a personal favor if you would indicate what
real constructive legislation the Senator ever fathered, or what
beneficial, constructive democratic legislation he ever failed to op-
pose. It is true he voted, as the Republicans did generally, for war
measures, both from patriotic reasons as well as self-preservation
politically. He, however, at the same time either on the floor of the
Senate or outside of the Senate, expressed his antagonism and op-
position to most of the measures for which he finally voted, includ-
ing such important measures as the food control act, and so on.

“I will deeply esteem your indicating wherein he ever opposed
the special interest, or wherein predatory wealth was not his friend.
Was he not always hand in glove with and supporting such reac-
tionary leaders as Senator Penrose, whom even the now immortal-
ized Roosevelt rebelled against and condemned them in more
scathing terms than it is possible for me to express. I mention par-

219

Chapter 7

ticularly Roosevelt’s description of those gentlemen in the Conven-
tion in the Chicago Auditorium in the summer of 1 9 1 2, in which he
called the gentlemen to whom I refer— ‘thieves, crooks, and second-
story men.’ I hope you will not consider it offensive when I suggest
that notwithstanding all this our senior Senator is pointed to by
you, a Democrat, as needed during this period of reconstruction.

“In the interest of fairness, and in view of the fact that your
position is already one of the great factors in the Smoot campaign
in Utah, if not surrounding States, may I not, as a Democrat, ask
you to state whether your position in this campaign relative to the
election of Senator Smoot is any different from the position you
have taken when the Senator was a candidate for election in
previous campaigns, and if so, in what particulars, except that you
now publicly favor the re-election of the Senator.

“I congratulate you, however, on being open and aboveboard
in what you have to say. I would a million times rather have you
frankly and openly express your views as you have done, than
permit them to be filtered through gum-shoe political hirelings,
especially when they occupy ecclesiastical offices, as has been done
in previous elections through Senator Smoot’s lieutenants. If you
are going to take part in the campaign, and you surely are doing
so very early and effectively, however unconscious you may be of
the fact, I hope will be with the same open frankness and candor
that has always characterized your conduct.

“In view of the fact that no member of the Presidency, or the
twelve Apostles, whatever their views or political convictions, has
ever publicly expressed themselves in opposition to the election of
Senator Smoot in any previous campaign, and in view of the fact
that so many of his religious followers believe he is performing a
divinely-called mission in serving in the United States Senate, and
in view of the fact that he has, and seems to propose to continue
to perform no other than a political service during the useful
portion of his life, while at the same time occupying the divine
calling of an Apostle of Jesus Christ, the special advocate of peace
and love and unity, I feel that you, and if not, Senator Smoot,
should relieve the situation of any doubt or uncertainty as to why
such an unusual condition should appear to exist.” 21

220

21 James H. Moyle to Heber J. Grant, 29 Apr. 1920, Box 2, fd 5.

Assistant Secretary from Utah

President Grant’s reply was not particularly heartening.

“My Dear Brother Moyle:

“Your letter of April 29th reached me Saturday, the 8th. I
thought it was a long letter on the health question, and laid it
aside without reading a single word, just noticing that there were
six pages of it. Sunday I went to Logan; but Monday, in the
morning between three and four A.M. I was dictating to my
machine a lot of correspondence for the Presidency, as well as
answering personal letters, and I read your letter for the first
time.

“There are many things in your letter that are very surprising
to me and, in my judgment, not written in a proper spirit, and
not worthy of a High Councillor in one of the Stakes of Zion. I
do not intend to take the time to discuss all the matters men-
tioned in your letter, as I am very busy, and leave for San Fran-
cisco this evening.

“I admit that Brother Smoot is a strong partisan, but I feel that
your letter is equally as partisan and as full of bias and prejudice
as anything you see in him. I do not think he is one particle more
part isan than your dear self. You ask for my free and frank opinion,
and you have it.

“You ask if I occupy the same position with reference to the
re-election of Reed Smoot that I have done in previous campaigns.
Twelve years ago I was opposed to Reed Smoot being elected,
because in my judgment he did not stand square on the Prohibi-
tion question. The Legislature, however, elected him overwhelm-
ingly. Six years ago I was decidedly in favor of his re-election, and
in a quiet way did what I could in his favor. I am unqualifiedly in
favor of his re-election at the present time. I look upon him as one
of the most practical, levelheaded businessmen in the United
States Senate. I am positive that he could command a salary of
$50,000.00 a year in more than one of the great banking institu-
tions of our country. While he may not have possessed as much
constructive and progressive ability as some senators on Demo-
cratic measures with which I would be in hearty accord, neverthe-
less I recognize his great ability and the need of just such a man in
the Senate at the present time. I believe Reed Smoot to be the most
valuable financial asset in the Senate, and that through his labors

221

Chapter 7

there will be a saving of millions upon millions of dollars for this
country. When I was on the Board of Directors of Provo Woollen
Mills I admired his business acumen.

“You have my confidence. I have always admired your frank-
ness. I rejoiced beyond measure when you were made Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury. I have prayed for you as sincerely as I
have ever prayed for Brother Smoot. I have no idea of taking an
active part in any political campaign. I voted, as you know, for
McKinley and Roosevelt; but at the same time I voted for you for
Governor, although my own brother-in-law, Heber M. Wells, was
running for the same office.

“I have not changed my mind, in the least, regarding the
League of Nations. I would have preferred it without reservations,
but inasmuch as reservations have been adopted I am not in favor
of the League with reservations, rather than have it defeated. The
Post correspondent misquotes me in intimating that I have had a
change of heart, because of being converted to Brother Smoot’s
position. I have had no conversation whatever with Brother Smoot
regarding the League of Nations.” 22

I answered with the following:

“My dear President Grant:

“Your letter of the 13th ultimo was duly received. It is not
altogether a surprise, although I did think you might understand
my viewpoint more perfectly than I believe you do. However, 1 do
not wish to continue unnecessarily the discussion of a subject that
is not pleasing.

“I note with deep interest your statement that my letter is
‘not written in the proper spirit.’ I admit that it was not a pleasing
task for me to present so bluntly to you facts and conclusions
which to my mind are unavoidable to one who is deeply in earnest
and absolutely loyal to his political party. My letter was written
as a partisan, to one professing to belong to the same party, who
I thought was taking a most inconsistent course as a member of
that party. Your letter is written, I take it, purely from a religious
standpoint. I have no right to be surprised or to object to the

222

22 Heber J. Grant to James H. Moyle, 13 May 1920, Box 2, fd 5.

Assistant Secretary from Utah

viewpoint expressed in your letter, but I wanted you to know just
how I felt, because I do not want to fly under false colors not to
embarrass any one, and particularly the Council of which I am
a member.

“Six years ago, I presented the same views and attitude quite
as clearly to our much lamented friend, Richard W. Young, and in
a more limited way to John M. Knight, Frank R. Snow, Alonzo
Young, and other Democratic members of the Council, each of
whom appeared to sympathize with my views and mental attitude,
although I think they all indicated that they would not express
themselves as I did. 1 would not embarrass them by my political
attitude and connection with them, any more than 1 would be
willing to voluntarily do the same now.

“I greatly appreciate the confidence you express in me now,
as well as the vote you cast for me twenty years ago. As I remember
your utterances, however, at the time you desired for the defeat
of your brother-in-law, Heber M. Wells, not because of his political
affiliations and views, but because you believed that his defeat
would be a blessing to him. However, I appreciate the confidence
you then expressed in me by the way you voted.

“Please pardon me if wrong, for calling your attention to the
fact that it was generally understood that the Legislature which was
elected in 1908, and which re-elected Senator Smoot in 1909, was
favorable to prohibition, and that Senator Smoot was reelected in
the following January or February, before it was realized that the
Smoot Federal appointee stood between the people in their de-
mand for a prohibition law, and the Legislature. Was not your
opposition to Senator Smoot due purely to his attitude toward
prohibition, and not to his being elected United States Senator?
At all events, if you opposed the election in November before he
was elected in January or February of the next year, I do not think
that any of the Democrats knew it, and therefore I remain in doubt
as to whether you opposed the reelection of Senator Smoot, or
merely opposed his attitude toward prohibition after he had been
reelected.

“I am very glad indeed to know that your views are not changed
intrinsically on the merits of the League of Nations. I feel as you
do on that subject, although I can not resist the belief that the
President is right in insisting upon America honoring its obliga-

223

Chapter 7

tions to the allies, and his duty to mankind in insisting upon the
League of Nations being a real, vital force in the accomplishment
of the purpose for which it was organized.

“It is with deep regret that I find the Democratic party of
Utah is to still have the opposition of the President of the
Church, no matter what his political views may be. When Wil-
ford Woodruff was President, the Republicans made capital out
of what they alleged to be a fact and telegraphed it all over the
State, that President Woodruff had voted early, and for the elec-
tion of Frank J. Cannon. During his administration, choice and
lovable good soul as he was, the Democrats never realized any
partisan support from him, and never asked it. Presidents Snow
and Smith were Republicans. The latter never failed to exhibit
his partisanship as far as he could do so without becoming posi-
tively offensive, even to saying that if he had been in Congress
when the much-desired and prayed for boon of Statehood was
about to be given, he, as a Republican, would have opposed it
or justified the action of the Republican party in opposing it,
because Utah was so strongly Democratic. That, as 1 remember,
was the substance of his address in the 17th Ward meeting
house after a Democratic administration had given to Utah the
greatest political boon it ever received, or ever can receive, State
sovereignty.

“My very soul has been tried by the utterances of such men
as John Henry Smith, whom I always loved and admired, but in
political campaigns felt like fighting to the very limit because of
his extreme partisanship, with no Democrat occupying a like
position giving comfort to Democrats like myself by joining in
openly fighting such men. It is true that Anthony W. Ivins has
always in private, but at times with great reticence, expressed the
living convictions of a real Democrat. Your theater speech of
twenty years ago, and your utterances on the prohibition question
which after all, was a moral and not a political issue, and the
utterances of the ill-fated Moses Thatcher, constitute the only
real partisan comfort that ever came from one of the twelve
Apostles, so far as I can recall. Whatever their views, as a rule if
it were in opposition to the Republicans the same was suppressed,
while men like Apostles Lyman and John Henry Smith, Reed

224

Assistant Secretary from Utah

Smoot, and others, made it their business to advocate Republi-
canism in season and out.” 2 '

A Complete Democrat

I present the foregoing to illustrate my feelings at the time
with regard to Senator Smoot and that of the leadership of the
Church that continued to interfere for the Republicans in politics.
But I remained a complete Democrat, and my first experience in
Washington only strengthened my loyalty to the party.

I was present, for example, through the friendship of McAdoo,
at the luncheon President Wilson gave at the White House to
maybe twenty-five or thirty guests whom the President could trust
on his return from Versailles. To us he unburdened his heavy-
laden soul of the sentiments he had been compelled previously to
withhold concerning that little “willful group.” The seal of history
is now being rapidly forged and will soon be indelibly stamped on
the verdict of all forward-looking men in everlasting condemna-
tion of the martyrdom of President Wilson by the Cabot Lodges
and the rest who sought to destroy (and did temporarily) the work
of that great political seer, who died as so many seers have done . 24

All that I can remember now is that it was an outburst of
expressions I have not the ability to repeat, but I never heard
anything more impressive or profound. He repeated some of the
obstacles he had encountered and was encountering, and his
characterization of his opponents, speaking generally and not
personally, was as furious as it was brilliant. His incidental refer-
ences to history were also impressively illuminating and pertinent.
The one thing I distinctly recall, but cannot adequately describe,
was the picture he presented of the men and their machinations
against his efforts and their country’s welfare. And with historical
references, he said they would be “impaled on history.” I would
not attempt to convey the brilliance and effectiveness of that
speech. But I can say that (if he knows what is going on in the

23 James H. Moyle to HeberJ. Gram, 2 June 1920, Box 2, fd 5.

24 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massa-
chusetts led a group of isolationist senators in a fight to defeat the Treaty of Versailles
that included the League of Nations. The ultimate failure of the Senate to approve
Wilson’s great dream was extremely detrimental to the president’s health, hence
Moyle’s “martyrdom” reference.

225

Chapter 7

minds of thoughtful men) that he has realized the fulfillment of
the vision he then presented of the world’s greatest tragedy— an-
other world war. Millions of brave men are being slaughtered in
battle and the lives of peaceful, unoffending men, women, and
innocent children, with their homes, places of worship, businesses,
hospitals, industry, and structures of civilization, are being de-
stroyed as never before. That destruction has not yet reached its
peak because America, the most powerful of all, is just commenc-
ing to fight to end that devastation. And only the Battle of
Armageddon will be more horrible and destructive.

As Democratic National Committeeman, then and later, I was
repeatedly in attendance at the councils of the party leaders who
were distinctly Wilson men, and who later constituted the group
who were for McAdoo for President, or were opposed to A1 Smith,
such men as Senator-leader Carter Glass, Senator and now Secre-
tary of State Cordell Hull, former Secretary of the Navy Josephus
Daniels, and Senator Claude Swanson of Virginia. But of all the
confidences I enjoyed and highly prized, that at the White House
luncheon was the most quiet and obscure but nevertheless the
most dramatic and significant. 25

Hull was from Tennessee, quiet rather than the opposite, and
conservative without being reactionary. He went along with Bryan,
Wilson, and then Roosevelt with good Democratic heart and soul,
and was loyal to each. I think he agreed with Bryan and Wilson as
to low tariff. They believed that if this country was to be a gr eat
manufacturer, raw materials must be kept free from tariff duties,
and that manufactured articles should be protected incidentally by
a tariff for revenue only. That as I remember was the position also
of Grover Cleveland. It was not unfair as politics go for such
protectionists to say that they were free traders. Their sympathies
were Democratic and for the common man, but that Democracy
was very different from that of the present. In those days the
philosophy of the party was the Jeffersonian idea that that govern-
ment which governs best governs least. Fundamentally, they were
in sympathy with the doctrine of the great French economist who
said (in effect) that “nature has interposed obstacles sufficient to
the satisfaction of man’s wants and government should not in-

226

25 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1 .

Assistant Secretary from Utah

crease them.” I changed my mind later as to that maxim, but always
(like Bryan, Wilson, and Hull) sympathized with it. JI>

I discussed the Underwood Tariff in 1913 with Senator Under-
wood and asked him why they put pretty much every chief product
of the West on the free list, and I protested against it, because every
great industry of the East was put on the protected list. Under-
wood’s reply was that President Wilson had gone along with the
East for general compromise but recognized personally that it was
an injustice to the West. (Underwood was a real candidate for the
Presidency in 1924.) Apparently, the steel and coal industry had
demonstrated to the President the need for protection just as our
Western industries had demonstrated the same to me. I therefore
told Underwood that I had stood with the party from Cleveland
on down and with its tariff policies as best I could because of my
belief in its fundamentals and virtues generally, but that I could
not support or defend a tariff that placed essentially all of the main
products of the West on the free list and at the same time put the
products of the East on the protected list.

It is my recollection that under the Underwood Tariff of 1913
about one quarter of a billion dollars in tariff revenue was col-
lected, and that the first time the total annual expenditures of the
Government reached a billion dollars was about 1907 when Teddy
Roosevelt was President. And his reply to Democratic criticism was
that we had become a billion-dollar nation. The expenditure then
of a billion was more tragic than the expenditure of a hundred
billion is now. Then, half that sum was considered an impossibility
by the best financiers, just as a three billion dollar liberty loan was
considered unfathomable in its consequences in 1917 when the
president of a large bank said to a gathering of financiers, “We
know something about the distance of the sun from the earth and
the marvelous movements of the planetary system, but we know
nothing about the importance, magnitude and consequence of a
loan of three billion.” The thought frightened everyone."'

26 Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2. Moyle undoubtedly referred to
Frederic Bastiat (1801-50) whose pamphlet Economic Sophisms expounded classic free-
tradism.

27 Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2.

Chapter 7

My Resignation

I tendered my resignation on the day President Harding took
office. It was accepted instantly to take effect upon the qualifica-
tion of my successor. Secretary Mellon, however, failed to recom-
mend a successor to the President. I advised the Secretary that I
was a Democratic National Committeeman, and had always been
a fighting Democrat. I called Mellon’s attention to the political
impropriety of my continuing in his office, but he wanted me to
remain, although he made no formal request. 28 I was the last
assistant Cabinet officer of the Wilson administration to be re-
tained. 2 ' 1

Several times thereafter I called the Secretary’s attention to
the importance of my leaving. I said on one occasion that we would
both be misunderstood if I remained longer because of my parti-
san activities before coming to Washington. He smiled signifi-
cantly and in his extremely quiet way said, “You are the one man
the politicians have demanded that I should get rid of on political
grounds.” I replied that I did not blame them, and that I was sure
Senator Reed Smoot was one of the politicians. I added that he
was fully justified from a partisan viewpoint, because 1 had never
left anything undone to accomplish his defeat. I then said, “If I
have ever left anything undone to accomplish his defeat, may the
Lord forgive me, for I did not intend it.” I explained that it was
not personal, but purely political, and because 1 was strongly
opposed to a man being an ecclesiastical and a political leader at
the same time. I stated we were both members of the same church,
and so on.

Shortly after this conversation, I was speaking with Angus M.
McLean, then on the board of the United States Finance Corpo-
ration, and now governor of North Carolina. He told me that
Mellon had said to him that Senator Smoot had indeed demanded
my removal on political grounds. McLean was a wealthy planter
and manufacturer and an intimate friend of Internal Revenue
Commissioner Blair, also of North Carolina.

In late July 1921, I went to Secretary Mellon and said, “I have
been absent from the mountains too long. I have been here four

228

28 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1 .

29 Memorandum dated Apr. 1943, Box 9, fd 7.

Assistant Secretary from Utah

years and now I am going. If there is anything whatever needing
my attention I will return and settle it. But I will leave prior to
August 1.” And I did, but he continued to pay my salary for a
month after 1 left. Again, he never explicitly said he wanted me to
remain, but his conduct clearly indicated that he did, and though
he rarely said anything, he always obviously appreciated what I did
and never reversed me on anything.

During the winter of 1928, former Utah Governor Heber M.
Wells said to me and my wife at his home in Washington that
Secretary Mellon told him that he did not want me to leave. When
1 left, he apparently called one of his attorneys, a Mr. Beal from
Pittsburg, to do my work unofficially. Beal merely initialed papers
and then passed them on to one of die other two assistants to sign.
Mellon had had no trouble with my divisions of the Treasury, but
did have with the others, so I believe he was glad to be relieved of
the necessity of appointing another. ’"

McAdoo for President

1 was admitted into the inner councils of the leaders of the
Democratic National Convention from 1917 (when I was Assis-
tant Secretary of the Treasury and McAdoo was so conspicuous
in the party) down to 1932 when I voluntarily gave up my con-
nection with the convention. I was Democratic National Commit-
teeman and was elected four times with practically no opposition,
the only man ever elected by the Utah party for more than one
term. The opposition of William R. Wallace who tried to succeed
me was feeble. He was ever after my only envious and virulent
political enemy, so far as I know. While he was a commendable
citizen who attained wealth, he lacked the stamina and courage
necessary to command the respect and confidence of voters. If
he had had courage and political sagacity he would probably have
been Senator in the place of Professor Elbert Thomas, who was
new and unknown outside of his university calling when a can-
didate in 1932. 31

The most conspicuous of the inner Wilson-McAdoo circle of
which I was a member were Senator Joe Robinson, later a leader

30 Memorandum dated Nov. 1928, Box 9, fd 3.

31 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6.

229

Chapter 7

in the Senate, and Carter Glass, first a leader in the House and
later Secretary of the Treasury and Senator of outstanding fame.
Glass was a friend of McAdoo but harbored Presidential hopes
himself and at the New York convention of 1924 maintained an
open headquarters. Cordell Hull was then a leader in the House
on the tariff and related issues. He was later Senator, chairman of
the Democratic National Committee, and Secretary of State. I also
worked closely in this connection with Senator Claude Swanson of
Virginia, later Secretary of the Navy. I knew Josephus Daniels
better than either Hull or Swanson, but he was also a rival of
McAdoo’s for the nomination in 1924, the same with Newton
Baker. I was intimate with H.S. Cummings, chairman of the
convention and later Attorney General under Roosevelt, and also
Daniel C. Roper, who became Secretary of Commerce in the New
Deal. All of these men were strong Wilson followers and most if
not all were nominally McAdoo men.

My friendship with Cummings was welded strongly by the fact
that when he was chairman of the party after the success of
Harding in 1920, he was greatly embarrassed by the failure of
prominent Democrats to aid him in securing the money and credit
needed to take care of the financial obligations of the party. With
about fifteen others, I responded by endorsing notes to banks for
quite a sum. Those notes tormented Cummings throughout his
tenure of office as chairman. And it gave me and the others great
concern, because the Republicans persisted in defeating the
Democrats for twelve years following Wilson, and patriotic Demo-
crats were scarce when demand was made for payment of the
notes, or renewal and security, as frequent deaths of those on the
notes and financial depression struck a number of the signers,
especially when serious demand was made for payment. When I
was at home but visiting in the East much later, he urged me to be
his guest at his home in Connecticut. We became very friendly. He
was tall, slender, and a typical Yankee type, the most so of any of
my official acquaintances.

It was during my activities on the Democratic National Com-
mittee following the Wilson administration or near its close that I
became acquainted with Frank Hague, who had just come into
some real importance in New Jersey and was attracting a wider
230 attention. He was put on the finance committee of the convention.

Assistant Secretary from Utah

He had been notably successful in financing the New Jersey
organization. It was then that 1 got a first view of how he and others
of his boss kind did business. Wilson would not play ball with them,
and McAdoo, as a consequence, inherited some of Tammany’s
anti-Wilson opposition. He did not surround himself with their
kind. Being so strongly a follower of Wilson and of McAdoo, I did
not have much to do with Tammany types. Well, Hague was smart
then (as time has since demonstrated him to be), but to me he was
altogether a new type of politician. Those 1 knew were in the first
place high-toned morally and politically, gentlemen of the finest
type, really big-minded men who prided themselves on maintain-
ing a high level of official conduct. They were men generally above
reproach or question. Hague, on the other hand, was a recent
success in practical politics who made no bones about saying freely
that he was not in it altogether for his health. His ambition was to
control Jersey City and New Jersey as Tammany did New York.

He was ready at his first meeting with us to solve the indebt-
edness problem in the same way he solved many problems in his
domain. He said, for example, that when a contractor wanted to
do state business he was asked to make a nice contribution to
the Democratic Committee and so on. There did not seem to be
any emphasis even on keeping it quiet. His open, frank, and
breezy manner and utterances in the face of this rather shocked
me, and there did not outwardly seem to be any crookedness
about him. He appeared clean-cut and decidedly open but with
no patience (as he clearly indicated) for indirect action. Go after
what you want directly and emphatically was his advice and policy.
That, I presume, accounts for the fact that he is still in business
and flourishing. '"

The Martyrdom of Woodrow Wilson

Fortunately, the Democratic party is not the party of wealth in
spite of some trouble with Hague-types. The other party cannot
make the same claim. Why do the Republicans cater to the “fat
fellows” who love only power more than money, or money more
than humankind? Why do the big, fat financiers and their satellites
hate Franklin Roosevelt as bitterly as they did Jefferson and

32 Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2.

231

Chapter 7

Jackson, and why did the lovers of human slavery and enemies of
freedom hate Lincoln, and why did the isolationists hate Woodrow
Wilson and his League of Nations to prevent war with a merciless
hatred that made him a real martyr in the cause of human welfare
and actually cause his death? I saw and met Wilson as he was just
a few months before the League’s defeat in the balm of mental
greatness and good health, and then I saw him unable to stand,
crumpled in an arm chair, at his last public reception only a few
weeks before his untimely death. I attended his funeral in the same
house, not as an employee in his administration but as a visitor
from the great West in Washington. I never attended a funeral
where there was greater solemnity and awe, and a deep and
abiding pity mingled with regret and respect. And now as 1 look
back upon the tragedy of his last months and survey his great work
divested of the little things that pass away with time, the immortal
greatness of him survives and grows brighter. It will become still
more brilliant as the disinterested and impartial view his greatness
and the fact that he was the greatest political seer of his time and
will forever stand beside Jefferson and Lincoln in the history of
the country. He had a vision of World War II if his League of
Nations failed, and he died because of that failure. And he realized
its consequences. Is it possible that the same leadership that caused
that failure will lead America in the unequalled crisis and unpar-
alleled emergency that now (1944) confronts the greatest of all
nations in the hour of its greatest peril and the imminent peril of
civilization itself? Only one totally ignorant of history would want
to return the Republicans to power."

I attended the meeting of the Democratic National Committee
in Washington and was present during the unprecedented scenes
that attended and followed the Doheny and other disclosures in
the oil lease investigation of January 1924." While there, Mrs.
Moyle" and I, with members of the committee, met former Presi-
dent Wilson at his home on January 15, which was his last recep-

33 Memorandum dated Feb.-Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6.

34 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1 . Reference is to the beginnings of the
“Teapot Dome Scandal” that racked the Harding-Coolidge administration.

35 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. Evelyn Moyle Nelson placed a note at
the top of this memorandum indicating that she attended the Wilson reception with
her father because Mrs. Moyle was ill.

232

Assistant Secretary from Utah

tion, and while I felt it an honor to meet with him and to shake
hands with him, it was not without regret because I realized that
he was slowly but surely dying. His form was cramped and twisted
as he sat in an armchair and raised his hand with manifest effort
to save his strength. He did not again attend Keith’s, 36 where he
was accustomed to go every Saturday night when his health would
permit, and where he invariably received a reception and demon-
stration unparalleled. The house was always filled, partly on his
account, and many who did not attend either waited outside to see
him at the beginning or close of the theater.

The newspapers did not overstate the scenes during his last
hours and burial. People kneeled on the wet, cold ground, in
inclement weather, with bared heads, in solemn prayer, before
he died, and although Senators and most important officers of
his administration and warmest friends were not invited in order
to make the funeral private and like the simple life he chose to
lead, tens of thousands stood on the street and in vacant lots, or
climbed trees and stood in any place available to get a view of
the cortege, some standing for many hours to hold desirable
positions.

It was said the floral tributes must have cost $50,000. They
filled the Wilson home, the National Cathedral, and the balance
went to the Walter Reed Army Hospital. Many of the floral pieces
were such as I have never seen for size and beauty.

Teapot Dome and the Defeat of McAdoo

The meeting of the Democratic National Committee was
called to fix the date of the National Convention (made June 24)
and to provide for the payment of the Committee’s indebtedness.
It was largely successful through the payment of $205,000 for
giving the privilege to New York of entertaining the delegates. New
York was determined to have it, and the financial condition of the
committee contributed materially in the selection of the location.
Holding the meeting in New York was considered unfavorable to
Mr. McAdoo’s candidacy because the city was so wet and the

36 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. Keith’s was a noted vaudeville theater in
Washington and a part of the famous “Keith’s Circuit” subsequently incorporated
into the RKO chain of theaters.

Chapter 7

influence of Wall Street so great, and Mr. McAdoo, like President
Wilson, mortally offended Tammany by refusing to make satisfac-
tory appointments. The right kind of Tammany men, however,
were given important positions, but that did not count. The
committeemen, nevertheless, were very strong for Mr. McAdoo.
Fifty-two delegates, a majority of all present, were openly and
publicly for him. "

Mrs. Weston Vernon, the National Committeewoman from
Utah, and I felt that we were fairly reflecting the sentiment of the
state in being among the fifty-two. About half of the balance would
not come out openly because their states had favorite sons, most
of whom only looked for a compliment. Others did not feel their
states were so clearly for McAdoo that they were justified in
indicating the state’s preference. This was particularly true in
states like Illinois.

John W. Davis had only four committeemen openly in his
favor. No other had more than two. Even in Alabama, with Oscar
Underwood making a vigorous fight and regarded as the next
leading candidate, the woman member from his state was openly
for Mr. McAdoo, and her husband was at Chicago urging McAdoo
to run.

Before the Doheny oil disclosures, the unmistakable trend of
political thought was so strong for McAdoo that there was a very
general effort to get on his bandwagon. Prominent and active
leaders who had opposed him vigorously four years before were
openly for him. ' 8

The effect of the disclosures in the oil lease investigation was
so exciting and hysterical that many ordinarily clear-headed men
were taken off their feet. Excepting the Great War, the excite-
ment was never before equalled, according to some of the old
newspapermen. The excitement reached such a pitch that when
Senator Smoot, in the presence of the Senate investigating com-
mittee, passed a note to Doheny merely asking him to call at his

37 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. McAdoo was a prohibitionist, or a
“dry,” while Governor Alfred Smith of New York was a leading “wet.”

38 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 1. McAdoo had done some legal work for
Edward L. Doheny and his oil firm. Though his work had nothing to do with the scan-
dal, McAdoo inevitably suffered politically because of his albeit innocent connection
with Doheny.

234

Assistant Skcretary from Utah

office, demand was made for its contents and an explanation,
and the day following the Washington Times, in a cartoon on its
front page, pictured Navy Secretary Edwin Denby, Doheny, and
Smoot with their backs to the wall, and a firing squad in the rear.

When McAdoo came to Washington after President Wilson’s
funeral, the feeling was that everybody connected with the ad-
ministration who could or should have any knowledge of the oil
lease and did not protest and anyone connected with oil interests
must go into the discard. President Calvin Coolidge, because he
had presided in the Senate when the resolution authorizing the
investigation was considered and because he sat in the Cabinet
when the transfers were made to the Interior Department and
the leases were executed, was included in the undesirables.

Even after McAdoo voluntarily submitted himself to the com-
mittee for the fullest examination and disclosed that his relations
with the Doheny companies commenced long after he left public
office, and that his employment had nothing to do with the leases
being investigated, and related only to the protection of American
oil interests in old Mexico that were threatened with confiscation
by the Mexican government, a service perfectly consistent with the
policy both of the Democratic and Republican administrations, he
was rendered unavailable, no matter how honorable the service,
because the unthinking would not learn the facts, or explanations
would have to be made in order to remove prejudice.

At first, McAdoo thought it was too ridiculous for considera-
tion, for as he stated to the committee when and during the time
he was attorney for the Doheny companies, they bore an enviable
reputation and he was never asked or consulted concerning any-
thing reprehensible, and if he had been he would have saved
Doheny from his great misfortune. But the very atmosphere was
so charged with the scandal, and some men who had been his
supporters were in such doubt, that he, contrary to the advice of
many of his managers, determined that before he proceeded
further he must know the wishes of his supporters. This hesitation
and doubt hurt him badly.™

Additionally, A1 Smith got the help of wealth and fell into
its hands and I suppose it made him. Being in the inner circles

39 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd I .

235

Chapter 7

of the McAdoo men in 1924, I can say assuredly that McAdoo
did not have wealth though he did have men of wealth behind
him, but not “fat fellows” or “ones.” Like Bryan, he was his own
man, and had he become President, I would have been high in
his administration. It looked at one time that he was surely going
to make it. 40

The Democratic National Committee was in debt in 1924 for
something just under $500, 000. 41 This indebtedness was one of
the potent reasons for the convention in 1924 going to New York
which favored Smith over McAdoo. New York City paid the party
half a million dollars for it, but even that did not get me off the
notes. I do not remember for sure, but I believe I had signed in
1920 notes that were still running in 1924.

The 1928 Campaign

In 1928, when A1 Smith was the prospective candidate of the
party for the Presidency, his representatives came to Utah. A
meeting was had with them in Ogden at which I figured promi-
nently in my advocacy of justice to the West in levying a tariff.
I had talked to A1 about it in New York in 1924 when I was
fighting him in McAdoo’s interest. He seemed interested but was
half drunk in his headquarters surrounded with his gang and
visitors of all kinds, so little was said. He was after people’s votes
against McAdoo and was not interested in philosophy or political
policies. 1 '

A1 Smith’s leader in this area was a fellow from Rock Springs
named Fred W. Johnson who is now Commissioner of the Land
Office in Washington. He presided at the big A1 Smith rally in
Ogden early in the campaign, being very active there and
throughout Utah and Wyoming as Al’s leader. In that Ogden

40 Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2. Smith and McAdoo were the
leading contenders for the nomination in New York, but neither could make headway
against the other. The convention consequently turned to a dark horse, John W.

Davis of West Virginia, who received the nomination after 104 ballots.

41 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 6.

42 Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2. Smith’s candidacy in 1928 was
the greatest trial of Moyle’s loyalty to the Democratic Party. See Gene A. Sessions,
ed., “A View of James Henry Moyle: His Diaries and Letters,” unpublished manu-
script, 1974, CLA, pp. 56-67.

236

Assistant Secretary from Utah

meeting I drew up a resolution on the tariff which I am sure
influenced Smith in his final stand on the issue. The declaration
was to the effect that the West should participate in the benefits
and favors of the tariff equally with the East to prevent discrimi-
nation against the chief products of the West. "

A Taxonomy of Men

The Democratic tariff policies of this period were also of
concern to the Southern leaders, many of whom I knew well. As I
look back over the Southern politicians and office holders I have
known, my impression is that they are of a very fine, high type of
manhood and stature and are devoted to the welfare of the
country. Like Senator Glass, who is outstanding among them, they
exhibit at times their human weaknesses, and some do not by any
means measure up to the standards of the majority and fall far
below it; but my acquaintance with official Southerners in their
local capacities as well as in Washington have impressed upon me
the fact that they are normally a religious-minded type of men,
though they have unbelievers in the South as elsewhere. They are
patriotic, hospitable, and are like Westerners rather than New
Englanders or Easterners, who are more cold, blunt, and more
devoted to business and money-making. In the North there is less
religion and more city life than in the South. But I am deeply
impressed with the superiority of the old type of Christian charac-
ter, both in the North and South.

There is much good in men wherever I have been from the
British Isles to Egypt, Assyria, and Turkey. I admire most, however,
Northern rather than Southern Europeans. I believe the blood of
Israel wandered from the Caspian to the Baltic up the Danube,
down the Rhine, through Russia, Germania, Scandinavia, and the
British Isles. But all are sons and daughters of a common Father
with common attributes and destiny. The colder climates, how-
ever, seem to have developed the hardier and most enduring types.
See Italy and Spain today to say nothing of Africa.

Much as I literally hate Hitler and Hitlerism, I cannot help
admiring the German character and trust there will be no effort
made to suppress any part of it but that which encourages war and

43 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 6.

237

Chapter 7

the destructive powers of Satan and the hatred of the Jew, which
is rapidly gaining ground even in this greatest nation of the
liberty-loving. It is one of the most perplexing conundrums of the
day to one like myself who devoutly believes in their Abrahamic
inheritance and promises. When will their miseries end and the
light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ shine in their lives?

It may be that because I have been looking for it from
childhood and want to see it that I believe the time is approaching,
although it seems afar off, when they will see that light and so li'e
in and be guided by it, that they will become what they are o
become a chosen and favored people, and not be known mosty
for money-making and -retaining qualities. Actually, they seem D
spend money freely, though I do not know whether they speni
grudgingly. I have met Jews whom I greatly admire and not a fev
of them, but am forced to confess that it is hard to resist th;
temptation to regard them on the whole not as desirable as th:
average Anglo-Saxon race, notwithstanding all of the good the'
have done for mankind. May we all have charity for each other an!
for all men . 44

44 Memorandum daled Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2. See additionally for the period
of this chapter the following: interview with Evelyn Moyle Nelson by Gene A. Ses-
sions, 20 June 1974, transcript of twelve pages, CLA, pp. 2-5, 1-12; interview with Sara
Moyle Creer by Gene A. Sessions, 3 July 1974, transcript of nineteen pages, CLA, pp.
6-10; interview with James D. Moyle by Gene A. Sessions, 1 1 Aug. 1974, transcript of
eighteen pages, CLA, pp. 8-11; memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2 (Item 5);
memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2 (Item 4); Sessions, “View of James
Henry Moyle,” pp. 32-67.

238

Chapter 8

MISSION PRESIDENT

A Revelation

On the organization of the Ensign Stake in 1904 I was made a high
councilor, which position I occupied until 1931, when with the
remaining two other original members of the quorum, I was
released.' That was the extent of my life as a churchman in spite
of my belief that I had maintained a fearless consistency and
stability in religion in the face of a violent conflict politically with
the leadership of the Church. This was not an easy role for a
Mormon in the period of transition in Utah from a complete union
of church and politics to a condition of separation of church and
state. Indeed, that was an accomplishment that many intelligent
Mormons and most all non-Mormons believed was impossible. For
example, William N. Williams, prominent in business and devoted
to the Church, said to me, “I think it was when the Deseret News
attacked you in a leading editorial that I was afraid your political
activity would lead you out of the Church.” So even my friends
regarded my situation and conditions as critical and vital. But
fortunately I ploughed my furrows straight and without faltering.
When the smoke and dark clouds of the battle (for it was one
literally) cleared and the prevailing calm rested on the scene, I

1 Undated memorandum, 14ox 8, fd 1; James Henry Moyle Collection, Library-
Archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, hereinafter cited as CLA. All references hereinafter to box and folder (fd)
are for items from this collection.

239

Chapter 8

appeared worthy religiously to be president of the most prominent
American mission, the Eastern States. And I was told by President
Grant that I could remain there as long as I would. I served more
than four and a half years until President Grant advised me to
accept the call of President Roosevelt. 2 3 4 Moreover, President Grant
said to me later that he had suggested to the council the consid-
eration of my name for Apostle and that the objection raised
against it was my age. I think that was about 1930. Joseph J. Cannon
said to me about that time the Deseret News prepared articles on
prospective possibilities and that I was among them.’

At a previously arranged meeting with the First Presidency of
the Church in the fall of 1928, President Grant stated that they
would like for me to take charge of the Eastern States Mission. It
was a very great surprise, but he said he thought that it would be
a nice way for me to wind up my career. I related the condition of
my affairs, particularly emphasizing the fact that I had secured a
credit from the Deseret National Bank of $50,000 for the gas and
oil business of my two sons, Gilbert andjames; thatjames was very
recently out of school and Gilbert was only a few years older; that
Gilbert was very successful in the business, but was inclined to take
chances and being an exceptionally good salesman had involved
the company in extensive credits without there having been any
capital to speak of put into the business; that should they fail it
would involve a loss to me that would be very serious as my capital
is limited.'

After hearing this story, Bishop Nibley said that if he had
known of the financial liability involved he would not have been
in favor of my taking the mission. We had quite a discussion, the
purport of which was that I had always been on hand to be of
service to the Church and desired to so continue, but as I presented
facts that indicated that I would be taking great hazards in leaving
the state, I was strongly impressed with the fact that I was probably

2 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 8, fd 3.

3 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2.

4 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 1. See Gene A. Sessions, ed., "A View of
James Henry Moyle: His Diaries and Letters,” unpublished manuscript, 1974, CLA,
pp. 130-38.

240

Mission President

making a mistake in being so concerned and that the boys would
get on all right without me.

I returned home where the family had gathered for dinner, 1
think celebrating the anniversary of our wedding. The children
were all there, excepting Evelyn who was in New York. They all
insisted, excepting Henry, that I had done enough for the Church
and was entitled to a rest rather than to take on greatly increased
responsibilities.

On the following Sunday, I attended church and sat on the
stand. Two young university students were speaking as home
missionaries from other wards. One of them, to my very great
surprise, said, “I was never in this building before, but do not feel
altogether a stranger because James H. Moyle is present.” We had
never met and I had no idea as to who he was. He continued,
“Because when my mother was a little girl he brought the Gospel
to the family and converted her to the Church.” I immediately
realized that he was a grandson of Henry P. Lindsay, whom I had
found in North Carolina under unusual circumstances heretofore
related. He had a fine, lovely wife and some nice children, all of
whom joined the Church, and he later came to Salt Lake where he
engaged in business and reared a splendid family. Notable among
bis granddaughters is the wife of the present Presiding Bishop of
the Church. The children were all well-married and a great credit
to the family. I was then more than seventy years old, but my mind
went back to the scenes of my activity as a missionary in the days
when to be a Mormon missionary was about as unpopular and
dangerous a calling as could be found. Joseph Standing had shortly
before been shot in cold blood in an adjoining state because he
refused to discontinue teaching the Gospel. He was a young man
about my age. Then the unusual work of my mission as a boy
passed through my mind in a sweeping panorama. I thought of
Brother Lindsay who was a man of more than ordinary intelligence
and good standing. The family had been so elevated and their
conditions so improved and their prospect so superior to what they
were, that the thought flashed through my mind in a most impres-
sive way that if I, as a boy not yet through with school, could be
the means of accomplishing so much good, what may I not do now,
with the broad experience that I had had and the capabilities that
I had developed.

It was one of the most impressive evidences to me of inspira-

241

Chapter 8

242

tion that I had ever enjoyed and I returned the next day t( the
First Presidency, whom I had left after my previous interview.viih
the understanding that I would take the matter of the Ealern
States Mission under consideration and determine what to lo. I
said to President Grant that I too had had a revelation andwas
ready to go on to the mission without the slightest doubt tint it
would prove beneficial and satisfactory to me. I asked how bng
they would want me to be on the mission and they said, “Oh, two
or three years,” and I said, “Well, let’s make it two” and the matter
rested there.

Eastern States Mission

I arrived in New York on January 11, 1929. President Henry
H. Rolapp, with whom I had roomed in college, was vety anxious
to leave due to appointments that he had made in Los Angeles,
anticipating that I would have been there a day or two earlier. He
said that, anticipating my coming, he had arranged for the leading
missionaries of the mission to be present and that he would like
for me to meet with them after he had made such explanation as
he thought desirable of the work he was transferring to me. He
did that in a vety short time and then we had an interview of about
two hours with the young men who constituted the leaders of the
mission, as I remember, eight or ten of them. Judge Rolapp, who
had already moved from the mission house in Brooklyn to a hotel
in New York, left me, saying that the secretaiy, Wilbur West, was
thoroughly familiar with the mission and all its activities and
believed he could give me any details that I might need. Elder West
was about twenty years of age and had been in the mission about
a year. I do not recall the number of missionaries but I think there
were about 125, but that number soon increased to 165. They were
scattered from Massachusetts lo the District of Columbia, includ-
ing all of the states bordering on the Atlantic. As I look back upon
the activities of the work that was involved, it seems almost
amazing that a group of such young, inexperienced youths should
be in charge of the same.

I had said to the First Presidency in our preliminary inter-
views that I had visited the branch of the Church in New York
City ever since my first visit to New York in 1889, and that I was
somewhat familiar with the character of the meeting places where

Mission President

church services were carried on; that they were so far helow my
ideas of what they should be and it would be one of my primary
aims to improve them and hoped to have their support, or some-
thing to that effect. I worked incessantly to accomplish that and
throughout my entire mission, with the result that I found in the
mission five meeting places owned by the Church, located in
Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Palmyra, and Fairview, and
doubled that number.

The structure in Brooklyn was appropriate except that it
lacked classrooms. It consisted of a chapel on the main floor and
a basement equipped for holding meetings that was also used for
dancing and entertainments, with few other auxiliary facilities of
consequence. The building in Philadelphia consisted of one-half
of a three-story double residential structure. The ground floor was
used as an auditorium, the floor above for classrooms and Relief
Society, and the third floor for classrooms and one room for
missionaries. The auditorium would accommodate about a hun-
dred people. The building in Baltimore was erected for a church
and consisted of one room with a gallery and small entrance hall.
The fourth was located at Palmyra. That building had been used
by some lodge and was not constructed for religious purposes but
served our purpose. The fifth was in a village called Fairview, near
Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, on the Maryland line. It consisted of
one room with very roughly constructed, irregular walls with
primitive board benches that were in very bad condition and
practically no other accommodations.

My predecessor, Judge Rolapp, had prided himself on the
amount of tithing that was returned to the Presiding Bishopric. I
reversed that policy and insisted that the money should be used in
improving the facilities for holding church services, with the result
that we spent more than $3,000 on improving, renovating, and
painting the chapel in Brooklyn. We also spent several thousand
dollars in enlarging the auditorium at Philadelphia and making of
the third floor an amusement hall and place of entertainment and
otherwise materially improving the accommodations."

In Palmyra we installed an appropriate baptismal font, replac-

5 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. Local officers were given much more lati-
tude on the disposition of tithing funds in 1929 than they are today.

Chapter 8

ing the outdoor cement pool that was constructed in the rtr of
the barn at the Joseph Smith Farm in Palmyra. We sunk a welhat
supplied water for shower baths for males in one place and feales
in another in order that our missionaries, when they vited
Palmyra, could enjoy these accommodations, as I had deterrned
there should be a mission conference there each July 24 inele-
bration of Pioneer Day. The male missionaries did pretty mth all
of their traveling on the public highway and the accommodions
in the farm house of the Joseph Smith farm were not sufflciot to
accommodate any more than the family who occupied it ad the
officers of the mission, and, in fact, not that much. 1 '

Miraculous Evidence

In Palmyra was Willard W. Bean, the caretaker of the Curch
properties in the area for more than twenty years. I was impissed
with the research Bean had done on the early history of Jseph
Smith and the Church in western New York. He had searchd old
newspapers, available records, and anything obtainable 01 the
subject. He discovered that there was no other source of informa-
tion available to Joseph Smith than the little, rural libray at
Palmyra, which had nothing much in it but government reiorts.
It was a land office center. This was the Prophet’s souce of
information when he organized the Church at the age of tventy-
four. Considering the Word of Wisdom alone, and all nf its
advantages as are apparent in my family and the families >f my
acquaintances, it could not have been anything but miracubus.

I suffered the normal ailments of childhood, but at mil-life,
and notably during my forties, I was at a serious disadvantage
mentally because I suffered greatly from bilious headaches, ivhich
I think I inherited from my father. He likewise complained of them
and so far as I remember they were his only serious disability,
though I remember his taking “dutch drops” for kidney or bladder
relief. Father was so depressed at times with biliousness that he
remained home a day or two at a time. But anyway, I remember
that during my first trip to Los Angeles in 1899, I met the son of
a stonecutter beside whom I had worked on the temple block. The
son was then a prominent wholesale liquor dealer, and the family

Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 1.

244

Mission President

doctor had advised me to drink dinner wine for relief to my
stomach trouble I regarded as quite serious. At all events, I would
have given most anything for relief. So I ordered from this man
several cases of dinner wines.

I must admit that I had another inducement to make the
purchase. I have now both son and son-in-law, fine clean, temper-
ate living, and generally consistent Latter-day Saints, who are in
the same state of mind as to the use of liquor that I was at forty.
Their social relations are almost the same. Their circle consists of
popular, prominent, socially ambitious, and otherwise temperate
persons who are caught in the entangling social cocktail web that
seems to constitute the most bewitching evil of the time, bewitch-
ing because it is so seemingly innocent if used in moderation but
so destructive because it is an entering wedge of evil. It leads to
more sin and social degeneracy than hardcore whiskey drinking,
because it is more subtle.

My wife and I were caught in that web but fortunately for only
a brief period. Our associates were of the most choice social class,
members of outstanding families— Youngs, Jenningses, Sharps,
Caineses, et al. Even the charming and most popular non-Mormon
preacher of the time whose conduct was always decorous and
highly enlivening belonged to our social circle. That association
soon demonstrated how impossible it is for Latter-day Saints even
of the moderate and temperate kind to be liquor drinkers in their
social contacts. The end for us came when the drinking in one of
the choicest homes became so hilarious and uproarious and unbe-
coming (to put it gently) that we concluded it would be our last.
That association continued for some years after without any very
fatal results, for all were of a high order mentally, but none were
elevated by it, and before serious trouble ensued, the group
dissolved. The minister quit early, and took up a splendid work
with inebriates that distinguished his long and brilliant career here
in Utah.

Of the group whose liquor drinking gatherings we discontin-
ued when I was about forty, not one of those who continued
remained members of the Church; most of them became Chris-
tian Scientists. Contrary to the plea now made that you have to
drink cocktails in order to retain the friendship and association
of those who do drink, we were respected after we quit the same
as before, except that the association was not so active and inti-

245

Chapter 8

mate. The old friends were pleased to attend the parties we gave,
and Mrs. Moyle was always socially active and loved to entertain
and be entertained.'

Building Program

I persistently urged that an appropriate building should be
purchased or erected in New York City, and succeeded in obtain-
ing an appropriation for the same of $250,000. My policy and
theory was that we should have an appropriate building first in
New York City and then another in Washington. The membership
of the Church was so divided in their opinion as to what should
be done that it seemed very difficult to reconcile the wishes of all
or any very large number. We secured an option on a four-story
building on Ninety-fifth Street in New York that could be pur-
chased for something like $250,000, but which would need exen-
sive changes and improvements the First Presidency agreed shoild
be made. Presidents Nibley and Ivins visited New York for the
purpose of determining whether the building was desirable md
approved of it, but as soon as word was obtained that the Morrrons
were going to locate a church in the structure the adjoiring
neighbors got together and purchased the property to keep us tut.
Prejudice in those days was very different from what it is mw.
There would be no trouble about such a matter at present, he
failure of the membership of the Church to agree on a locaton
and the desire on the part of so many to have another churchon
Long Island, one in New Jersey, and another in New York Cty,
held the matter in suspense until the Presidency concluded to elect
the building in Washington. President Ivins was particularly entiu-
siastic about the Church having an appropriate building in Wash-
ington and showed me, when I accepted the call, a picture of the
idea that they had of what it should be. It consisted chiefly of the
central part of the front of the Salt Lake Temple that supports the
Angel Moroni. The appropriation for the Church in New York was
consequently transferred to Washington, with the result that the
chapel there, costing more than half a million dollars, was erected.

When I left the mission July 19, 1933, to become Roosevelt’s
Commissioner of Customs, I had just had the privilege of dedicat-

246

7 Memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6.

Mission President

ing the statue of' Moroni that surmounts the Washington Chapel
at the height of 165 feet above the street. The building was not
quite complete then, but it was ready for use and was dedicated
the following November."

That chapel in Washington was then and still is the most
beautiful and substantial of all the chapels of the Church. It is built
of steel and Utah marble surmounted with the life-sized figure of
the Angel Moroni with his extended bugle gilded in gold. It is
located on the Avenue of the Presidents (Sixteenth Street) and
Columbia Road directly north of the entrance to the White House.
It is now central in Washington’s most popular and choice residen-
tial North West section adjoining the residences, embassies, and
legations of the foreign governments. It is near and on the way to
the main entrance to Washington’s beautiful Rock Creek Park. A
lady of choice tastes, not a Mormon, who visited the building while
I was there, said it reminded her of a jewel box. Even shortly after
its dedication in November of 1933, its auditorium was frequently
filled and sometimes overflowing. 1

At New Bedford, Massachusetts, was an old branch of the
Church that was in very inferior quarters with nothing but a single
room that had to be used for all purposes. The greater part of the
members of the branch were weavers from England, and most of
them were out of work because of the Depression, and in 1930 the
Church authorized me to spend a sufficient amount to build a neat
little chapel for them. The excavation and foundation and much
of the structure were erected with the labor of the members of the
branch who were out of employment, and some of those who were
employed worked on the building nights and holidays. At night,
an arc light was set up and the wives of the working men served
refreshments. It not only resulted in a nice little church structure
fitted for the needs of the membership in New Bedford but it
stirred up great interest and activity on the part of the members
and impressed many nonmembers in the area.

At Pittsburgh, we purchased for about $16,000 a very neat,
well-located and appropriate building with accommodations for
the auxiliary organizations of the branch. The structure had been

8 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1.

!l Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1 942. Box 9, Id 6.

247

Chapter 8

248

erected and used by the Swedenborgians. That proved to be a very
good investment and served to increase interest and activity on the
part of the members and much greater attendance of nonmem-
bers. We painted and improved the building and generally fixed
up the grounds.

In East Orange, we purchased an old Episcopal church, the
basement of which was so reconstructed that it provided a good
amusement hall and place for auxiliary needs. The building was in
bad condition as the financial affairs of the old church were such
that they had been unable to keep it up and sold it very cheaply. 1
do not remember now the amount, but I recall that it was a very
well-located building. That transaction proved also to be quite a
success and an attractive addition to the buildings of the Church.
It was nice, and better than the original five in the mission except
for Brooklyn.

At Erie, Pennsylvania, the branch meetings had been held for
a long time in a public hall, an old, wooden structure with lodge
accommodation and used principally as such. Due to the Depres-
sion, that was also a financial loss and I bought it for something
like $3,000. Sufficient money was then spent on it to put it in good
condition and to improve the grounds around it until it was made
comparatively attractive, with ample accommodation for auxiliary
uses. Again, many out-of-work members did most of the work
gratis.

At Buck Valley, in northwestern Maryland, two missionaries
had done most of the work of constructing a one-room, rustic
place of meeting, which was furnished and equipped during my
administration with another room built in addition for the ac-
commodations of the missionaries located in that locality and as
an auxiliary association room. It was started before I arrived and
practically all the work was done by missionaries. It was very rude
and simple.

The building at the village near Waynesboro was old and the
north wall so badly cracked and considered so dangerous that we
had that wall torn down and replaced, the inside walls resurfaced
with some sort of manufactured boards and the pioneer benches
replaced with appropriate chairs, and the structure was very greatly
improved.

At Brooklyn, in addition to spending the $3,000 in improving

Mission Presiden t

the condition of the building and increasing its accommodations,
we purchased for about $ 1 ,500 a large pipe organ from a disman-
tled church, out of which the musical genius of the branch, a
German organist named Leski, managed to make a very fine organ
for the chapel, which was not completed when I left the mission.

At Baltimore, the church was located in a section that was so
far taken over by blacks that I deemed it wise to accept $10,000
for the structure and recommended that it be sold, which was
done, and I had the money deposited in the National City Bank of
New York as a trust fund for the members of the Church in
Baltimore. That constituted the nucleus and beginning of a struc-
ture costing $35,000 that was constructed after I left the mission.
Since I left the mission in 1933, so far as I know, no additional
churches have been purchased or erected, excepting one in Phila-
delphia and that in Baltimore. I see by the Deseret News (January 8,
1944), however, that a new church is being erected in Fairview,
Pennsylvania.

Thus the old structures in the mission were greatly improved
and the number of churches increased 100 percent during my
administration. 10

As president of the Eastern States Mission, I urged the Breth-
ren to create the stake in New York. To do my part, I created a
stake organization in every detail and urged its being formalized
into a stake, which was done shortly after I left the mission. It
would have been done before but for the Great Depression that
drove New Yorkers west where they could live more cheaply.
Apostle George F. Richards was sent to the mission the year
before 1 left to advise whether the stake should be created and
he advised postponing the determination of the matter until it
was certain that the member population in and near New York
was sufficiently stable to justify it. The members in Washington
also urged for some time the organization of a stake in Wash-
ington. Later and to advance the same, they followed the example
1 set in New York and completed the unauthorized organization
that only needed that name and seal of approval. ' 1

10 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1.

11 Memorandum dated Sept. -Oct. 1943, Box 10, fd 3.

249

Chapter 8

Innovation

I had been on a mission fifty years before and was greatly
surprised to find that the methods of carrying on the propaganda
work for the Church had not been greatly changed from my early
experience. House to house canvassing, or “tracting,” was the only
activity of the missionaries. I was immediately impressed with the
importance of modernizing the missionary activities and wrote the
First Presidency urging that if they could give us some time of Dr.
James E. Talmage or B. H. Roberts, we could do a great work over
the radio in New York. We had for a beginning one very good
friend, a Brother Stanley McAllister, the mechanical engineer of
the Columbia Broadcasting Company, through whom we made
friends in connection with the work that was then being done by
the Tabernacle Choir, who opened the way for the enlargement,
without great cost, of broadcasting over the radio. The authorities
replied that they could not spare the services of either of the
gentlemen I wanted. I was so deeply impressed with the impor-
tance of using the radio that at a conference of our leading
missionaries I urged them to be on the lookout for opportunities
of speaking over the radio and said that I was so deeply impressed
with its importance that if we could not get help from Salt Lake
we would do the work ourselves. As a result, young Elder Parkin-
son of Preston, Idaho, a mere boy, secured for a small amount the
opportunity of delivering an address of the radio at New Bedford,
Massachusetts. But the real opening came at Wilkes-Barre, Penn-
sylvania, when D. Glenn Brown of Provo and John M. Anderson
of Logan secured the permission of the proprietor of the chief of
two stations there to fill in any vacancy which might occur. 1 think
Brown was about twenty years of age and both were farmer boys
of no special education outside of a little, maybe, at the Brigham
Young Academy and Logan Agricultural College. The young men
prepared their own addresses, which we supervised, and the
opportunity soon came in the summer of 1930, and on August 10
they were given a half hour each Sunday evening, permanently,
which was utilized during the balance of my missionary work and
for some time after. During the half hour they sang Mormon
hymns and delivered a fifteen-minute sermon. That proved such
a success that the work was extended to Syracuse and Jamestown,
New York, and then to Wilmington, the principle city of Delaware.

250

Mission President

About that time a like opportunity was given in New Bedford,
Massachusetts. The work rapidly increased until we had stations
in those places named and at Altoona, Pennsylvania, and in
Washington. And when I left the mission, and for a considerable
time before, we had seven stations going regularly, with scarcely
any cost to the Church. The musical programs were given by our
missionaries with some rare exceptions. And before I left the
mission more than a thousand sermons had been delivered over
the radio, a work that has not been equalled since. To coordinate
the work, I called Elder Brown to be Mission Radio Director, and
he did a splendid work.

The success with radio convinced me that other forms of
publicity were necessary. 1 found eight districts in the mission each
presided over by an elder. I increased the number to twelve and
had a publicity director appointed in each district and one for the
mission. The work they accomplished was almost phenomenal in
getting publicity in the papers. The radio work was the first in
missionary fields, and I understand ours was the first organized
effort at mass publicity. There had been some address delivered
in Los Angeles where a number of Mormons were located and
where large branches of the Church existed, but no other mission
had ever undertaken such a program to use the available sources
of publicity. The radio work was not kept up continuously in all
the places stated, but where one station was lost others were
obtained, so that it continually averaged about seven, and was
seven when I left the mission. One of the very active stations was
that in Paterson, New jersey, and there were others at Harrisburg,
Buffalo, and Washington.

We decided that we should place Mormon exhibitions in the
various state fairs and expositions in the mission. The first and
most successful of these was at Springfield, Massachusetts. In the
main hall we rented a prominent space for $200 and made an
exhibit there that attracted very great attention and resulted in the
distribution of several thousand tracts. We found that the Chris-
tian Scientists had also been successful in using exhibitions. As I
recall, we had only about two weeks after learning that we could
have the space to prepare for it. We telegraphed to Salt Lake City
for literature and publicity material that had been used elsewhere,
but we were unable to get it. One of the members of the Church
in Brooklyn, a German mechanical genius, had constructed a

Chapter 8

miniature reproduction of the Salt Lake Temple that we had used
in a celebration at Palmyra. We had that brought down and made
it the central feature of our display with a large banner over it on
which we printed: “See What God Hath Wrought.” We covered
the sides of the space with the best publicity matter we could get,
reproducing health statistics on Utah and the Mormons to support
the Word of Wisdom. In the course of a few days we got out a little
folder containing very pertinent and interesting facts which, with
the banner and these publications on the side of the room, made
it sufficiently attractive to lead a great many people to call and
accept, at least carry away, our tract— people who would not receive
trading missionaries in their homes.

Another innovation in publicity was that of using moving
pictures. Nothing of the kind had been used before in publicity
(so far as I know) in any mission, with the exception of some
smoked-glass slides that were very inadequate and not easily han-
dled. I introduced the use of moving pictures and made a trip to
Yucatan in February 1931, where my son James took sixteen-milli-
meter films of the ruins and remains of pre-Columbian structures
unearthed by archeologists in support of the Book of Mormon. 12
Mrs. Moyle and my son’s wife also made the trip, and we visited
Chichen Itza and Uxmal. We were the guests of Dr. Sylvanus G.
Morley, whom the Carnegie Institute of Washington had kept in
Central America for many years unearthing old ruins. One of his
books of a thousand pages describes the ruins at Copan, Guate-
mala. He had spent ten years there and about the same at Chichen
Itza, which archeologists claim had a population of probably
300,000 people before the days of Columbus. Dr. Herbert ).
Spinden, who had been the professor of Archeology at Harvard
and was then the Curator of the Museum in Brooklyn, planned
our trip. He is the author of numerous books on American
archeology, and he and Morley are probably the two leading
archeologists of the United States. 1 '

12 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. These films were subsequently copied
and given to the Church Historian’s Office by Henry D. Moyle.

13 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. See Morley’s classic, The Ancient Maya,

3rd ed. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1947), and Spinden’s major work,
Ancient Civilizations of Mexico and Central America, 3rd ed. rev. (New York: American
Museum of Natural History, 1928). See also James D. Moyle, Remembrances (Ogden,

252

Mission President

Excursions to Mexico

In 1907 I had spent about six weeks in Mexico in company
with James Chipman, Ira Wines, and my son, Walter. We went
there primarily for the purpose of considering the advisability of
purchasing for a syndicate a large tract of land on the Panico River
about twenty-five miles above Tampico, and incidentally for a
winter trip vacation.

We purchased the land for the incorporators of the Utah
Tropical Fruit Company of which Chipman was president and I
think I was vice president, at all events a director and attorney. The
company made extensive improvements on the property in clear-
ing and planting orchards of citrus fruits and purchased a cattle
business in that section. Both the fruit trees and cattle did well
until the rebellion that continued for years and resulted in the
killing of Madero, the President of Mexico, and the final setting
up of a new regime. Our cattle and all our improvements were
destroyed by the warring factions, for which claim was made
against the Mexican Government. That claim was just settled.

Chipman looked after the property until about the time of his
death when it was turned over to the secretary or treasurer of the
company, Charles Wells; the company was abandoned recently
when oil was developed near our property and we sold the same
which reimbursed the stockholders so far as I remember.

After examining the property, we then visited a number of the
leading cities of Mexico, especially Mexico City, Vera Cruz, and
Toledo. While at Toledo we visited ten miles away the great
pyramid at Cholula that covers forty acres and is about two
hundred feet high. On its summit is an old Spanish chapel that
replaced the Aztec temple the invaders found in very active use.
Cholula was one of the most sacred places in Mexico and believed
to be the headquarters of the god Quetzalcoatl, sometimes called
“the feathered serpent,” the feathers representing the air and the
serpent representing the earth, making it the god of earth and air.
He was white and had a beard and some of the historians say that
he corresponded to our Christ. From my research 1 conclude the
same thing. He taught them the arts of peace and such opposition
to war that although the people living at Cholula and thereabout

UT: Weber State College Press, 1982), pp. 140-44.

253

Chapter 8

were highly advanced in civilization and rich they were so opposed
to war that they became easy victims of the greed of the Spaniards.
The pyramid is composed of earth and uncut stone, excepting the
wide stairway that leads to the summit.

We visited the Pyramid of the Sun in the Valley of Mexico that
covered about ten acres, was two hundred feet high, and was
surfaced with stone and cement. At that time but little of the
pyramid was excavated and it looked like a conical hill with
shrubbery growing on it, excepting that part that had been uncov-
ered that consisted chiefly of the entrance and west side where the
stairway led to the summit. There had been some excavation also
in front of and near the pyramid that exposed the presence of a
cement street or highway that, though covered with a foot or two
of debris and shrubbery, extended out into the valley for miles.
On the opposite side of the street and very nearby is the Pyramid
of the Moon that was still unexcavated excepting to a very slight
extent in 1931.

Beside this immense street was unearthed the basement of
buildings that showed a high state of civilization because of the
fine workmanship and cement that not only covered the floor but
the sides of the rooms. Nothing remained but the basement or a
small part of the first story of the building. It was apparent that
the basement or main floor of the building had a bathroom, which
appeared from its size and the outlet for the water.

When we visited the same place in 1931, the Pyramid of the
Sun was completely uncovered and a tunnel run into its center that
disclosed that the interior of the Pyramid was earth and the debris
of the vicinity.

In 1931 we found what did not appear in 1907, namely the
remains of the Temple of Quetzalcoatl, evidently an immense
structure as the foundations covered many acres, all of which were
covered over with a deep deposit of accumulated debris in 1907.

In 1931 we spent a week at Mexico City. Mrs. Moyle and I were
entertained at the Embassy byj. Reuben Clark, Jr., the American
Ambassador. It is one of the best in the Foreign Service. Clark was
entertaining at the same time Thomas S. Gates, President of the
University of Pennsylvania, and his wife. He took us all, with fames
and Louise (Mrs. James D. Moyle), to Cuernevaca. His predeces-
sor, Dwight Morrow, owned a beautiful villa there, the use of which

254

Mission President

he had turned over to Clark. We were entertained there and took
moving pictures of the same, also of the pyramid outside of
Cuernevaca and other places we visited in Mexico and Yucatan.

We also visited the archeological ruins nearer to Mexico City.
I was greatly interested in the Temple or Pyramid of the Serpent
in the suburbs of Mexico City. That was not excavated when I was
in Mexico before. It is surrounded at the base by large, flat stones
on which is an upraised carving of serpents, one after the other all
around it. Pictures were taken of it. Out of the city a short distance
an ancient village had been covered with lava under which was
found the bones of a number of human beings that were well
preserved. That also was a new excavation.

We went from New York to Havana and from there to Pro-
greso, the main port in Yucatan. A strong south wind was blowing
the water from the south shore making the water too shallow for
the tender to leave the dock. As a result, we had to remain on the
steamer several miles out in the Gulf for about a day and night
while the considerable though not severe wind subsided. 14

From Progreso we went to Merida, the capital of Yucatan, a
city of about 100,000 people. It was built by the Spaniards soon
after the conquest of the country and is occupied largely by the
Spanish population of the peninsula, a very attractive city with a
most interesting public market. The hotels are old and built after
styles that are so different from those common to civilization now
that they were very interesting. We had large, high-ceilinged rooms
with highly-ornamented woodwork and tile floors, with toilet and
bath in a large room built for sleeping or living quarters.

From Merida we made the trip by train and motor car to Muna,
and from there in Ford cars to Uxmal (pronounced “Ushmal”). All
of the few railroads in Yucatan are narrow-gauged, but the one to
Muna was the crudest I ever saw. Additionally, Yucatan had no rail
or passable road to the other states in Mexico.

The most impressive sight we witnessed on the entire trip
occurred as we approached Uxmal. The very narrow road for
several miles is through what they call the “bush,” which is densely
timbered country with heavy underbrush. There suddenly came

14 Memorandum dated Feb. 1936, Box 15, fd 3. James D. Moyle made some mi-
nor corrections of detail in this paragraph after reading his father’s version.

255

Chapter 8

into view the top of the Pyramid of the Dwarf, which we soon
reached. It was extremely impressive because of the manifest
antiquity of the pyramid and the sudden change from a vast area
of wilderness to bush and what was evidently a magnificent center
of a highly civilized people. The pyramid probably does not cover
more than an acre, is built entirely of stone, and reaches a height
of about 150 feet. It is surmounted by a shrine or small temple or
place of worship.

The long rows of wide stone steps leading to the top are very
steep. For that reason a heavy rope was stretched from the top to
the bottom with which visitors would protect themselves from
falling. Not very far away are very extensive remains of what is
called the nunnery because of the large court and the buildings
surrounding the same with single rooms and nothing but a door
entering the same. Then we saw a great number of remains of
temples and structures of various kinds that had not been exca-
vated to any extent, so we saw them in their native condition. Most
of the structures were partially fallen and considerable portions of
the pyramid had broken away leaving the surface rough and too
steep for very much debris to collect on its sides. 1 "

Our next trip was in another direction from Merida to
Chichen Itza where the Carnegie Institute of Washington, under
the direction of Dr. Morley, had kept a large force of men working
for years uncovering some of the ruins. It is estimated that the city
originally had about a quarter of a million residents. The ruins are
extended over a very large area.

My son James took good moving pictures of many of the
leading ruins and tried to take pictures of the Sacred Well, which
were not very satisfactory because of the practical impossibility of
showing the well in pictures except if they were made by an expeit.
The book describing the Sacred Well, by Thompson, is as interest-
ing as most any novel although he undertakes to present the facs
as tradition and available writings describe.

The well is probably one hundred or one hundred fifty feet it
diameter and about sixty feet to the water, with all but perpendici-
lar walls except in one place where you enter, which is also ver/
steep. According to Thompson, they sacrificed the most beautifd

256

15 Memorandum dated Feb. 1936, Box 15, fd 3.

Mission President

maidens to (heir rain god in times of drought and suffering in
order to appease the wrath of the god. She was treated for a
considerable time with great honor and attention but finally
thrown into the well where she perished. They also threw into the
well much of the most valuable of their jewelry as a sacrifice.
Thompson acquired the property and sold it to the Institute.
Because of the belief in the history of the well, he had the well
dredged in the hope of acquiring valuable relics but, while he
found some, they were not as numerous or valuable as he ex-
pected.'"

The Carnegie Institute has acquired title to a large amount
of country, including the remains of the entire city. No one is
living in any of these ancient ruins. The natives do not know
anything about who built them or what became of the great
civilization that antedated their time. The people generally live
in thatched huts. The Mayans were the most highly civilized of
the ancient inhabitants but those that were left were so abused
and misused that, as a rule, they are very poor and live in the
most primitive way. Yet they have the appearance of being de-
scendants of a well-civilized people.

While at Mexico City, my son James and I went to Oaxaca, an
all-day trip on a very slow railroad through a mountainous, barren
country where we passed through something like a forest of cactus.
The small train and few passengers were protected by a consider-
able group of armed soldiers.

We arrived in Oaxaca a few days after an earthquake had
demolished some buildings and badly cracked the principal hotel
where we were lodged. It also had badly shaken and cracked the
cathedral and a church, as well as a number of business houses.
The debris from the fallen building still clogged traffic on the
street.

We visited Monte Albans (to which a fine road had just been
built by the Mexican Government), the ancient ruins on the top
of a mountain where there had evidently lived a large population.
The ruins had not been excavated but some of them have since,
yielding a great quantity of valuable relics, particularly in jewelry.

We also went to Mitla where the excavated ruins disclosed the

"’Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 1.

257

Chapter 8

lower part of a massive ancient temple with splendid, well-cut
columns, fine carvings, and paintings. Most interesting of all to me
were the floors and courtyards made of fine cement work that,
prior to excavation, had been covered with a deep deposit of the
accumulated debris of the ages. Some of the cut stones in the
building were twelve or fourteen feet long and two or three feet
square, just how they were cut and put in position would be
interesting information. Some of the walls slill standing are highly
ornamented with colored mosaics. The trip to Mitla was by auto-
mobile. On the way we stopped at where there was an immense
old tree history and tradition say sheltered Cortez and many of his
soldiers. It is my recollection that it was either thirty-five feet or
thirty-five steps around the trunk of the tree, the foliage of which
was very dense.

The Joy of Service

I always enjoyed good health, which continued with me
through my mission and enabled me to perform the arduous
duties of presiding over a large mission in which I kept up all of
its activities as fully as if I had been a much younger man. I
introduced into the mission immediately orderly conduct and
business methods, providing when missionaries should get up,
breakfast, commence their prayers and study class of three-quar-
ters of an hour daily, when to commence and continue daily
trading, and so on. An important innovation in the Eastern States
was the introduction in 1929 and for the first time the requirement
of keeping track of missionary trading, and providing every mis-
sionary with the appropriate book in which to record the streets
and locality traded, number of times tracted, when, and by whom.
That book was called “The Trading Book,” and another the
“Prospective Investigators Book.” By means of these, for the first
time in the mission succeeding missionaries were advised where,
when, and by whom work was done before them in a particular
area. This continued to be a marked success. 1 '

I was really happy during my four and a half years as mission
president, and a similar experience I am certain would give anyone
much of a new outlook on life. Where one is wholly and solely

258

17 Memorandum dated Feb. 1936, Box 15, fd 3.

Mission President

absorbed in the work, lie gets an inspiration and knowledge out
of it that I am certain is not obtained in any other way. There is
something in Mormonism that is deeper and more profound than
anything else that comes to a man in this life. I was sorry to have
discovered this so late, though I had always given the Church some
measure of attention. 18

Governor Roosevelt

While I was in New York and as my time would allow, I
continued to work in my capacity as Democratic National Commit-
teeman. I was extremely happy with the nomination of Governor
Franklin D. Roosevelt for the Presidency, notwithstanding some
of his views such as the ending of prohibition that were difficult
for me. 1 always saw in him my ideal of a cultured, intelligent
gentleman, a clean-looking, clean-living family man, father of an
unusually large and fine family, though he is not without some
serious faults, but who does not have them? He is a man of fine
moral and religious instincts— he said to me when he was governor
and when national prohibition was a prominent issue, “Moyle, you
and I see that matter alike, but we must treat it in a practical way.”
While he smoked and indulged in liquor largely in a social but
moderate way, he was essentially a temperance man so far as I
know or believe. I never heard of his being intoxicated, though I
presume he may have been made very jolly if not hilarious at times.
But I will warrant that at all times he conducted himself in a
gentlemanly way as that term is generally understood.

Until after he became an active candidate for the Presidency,
1 did not regard him in any sense as a superman, though I knew
he had some of the qualities of one, especially in his social relations
and dealings with men. I merely regarded him as otherwise a young
man of ordinary standing among the leaders of the nation, who
had had unusual and superior advantages in life in the develop-
ment of his intellectual and social sphere. It was not until he

,8 James H. Moyle to Ezra C. Rich, 15 Jan. 1931. See additionally for the mis-
sion presidency period the following: interview with Evelyn Moyle Nelson by Gene A.
Sessions, 20 June 1974, transcript of twelve pages, CLA, p. 9; interview with Sara
Moyle Creer, 3 July 1974, transcript of nineteen pages, CLA, pp. 10, 15-19; interview
with James D. Moyle by Gene A. Sessions, 1 1 Aug. 1974, transcript of eighteen pages,
CLA, pp. 7-11; Sessions, “View of James Henry Moyle,” pp. 68-89.

259

Chapter 8

unfolded at the beginning of his first campaign for the Presidency
his national policies that I recognized that in him was something
unusual and outstanding. That was climaxed in my mind when he
so aptly illustrated his sympathy for mankind in his first campaign
speech when he said he was more interested in the base of the
social pyramid than its apex; that the base should be nurtured
directly rather than let the benefits of government find its way to
them by percolating through the apex and on downward. My later
acquaintance led me to sympathize and admire him even more
genuinely. 1 1

Assessing Utah for the Next President

Early in his campaign (after the nomination), he asked me for
information on Utah and the Church and my political assessment
of Democracy’s chances in the state. Happily, I prepared the
following memorandum I submitted to him August 29, 1932;

“The tariff bills enacted under both Cleveland and Wilson
administrations placed practically every product of Utah and the
far-western states on the ‘Free List,’ and compelled the West to
pay a substantial tariff on most of the products of the East. It is my
recollection that the Cleveland Tariff produced a revenue of about
a quarter of a billion dollars per year. This more than anything else
made the West Republican and Utah in particular.

“I am glad you are going to Utah; you may be interested in
knowing that practically all of the original Mormon leaders were
Democrats from New England, New York, New Jersey, and Penn-
sylvania. Daniel H. Wells, who was converted in Illinois just before
the migration to the Rockies, was the only Whig among the
Mormons.

“We had no national parties in Utah until early in the 1890s.
Up to that time the two parties were pro- and anti-Mormon. The
anti-Mormon party leadership consisted chiefly of Republican
‘carpetbaggers’ and their followers. It was not until in the 1880s
that they made much of a showing at the polls. Every delegate to
Congress, down to the organization of the national parties in Utah
early in the 1890s when national politics became an issue were
Mormon Democrats who always sat on the Democratic side and

260

19 Memorandum dated Apr., Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 5.

Mission President

voted with the Democrats and were known only as such. No
member of the anti-Mormon party had any chance in territorial or
county elections until 1890.

“States rights— the right to self-government, for which the
people pled and appealed to Congress repeatedly— was always
denied until we had a Democratic Congress in 1895. The Repub-
licans previously knew Utah would be Democratic. Even when
Nevada and Wyoming were given statehood, each having less
population than Salt Lake City, and very little wealth outside of
mining and ranching and the Pacific railroads which also passed
through Utah.

“Brigham Young, and all of his successors down to Joseph F.
Smith, who preceded President Grant, were Democrats. The latter
will undoubtedly vote for Senator Smoot, but for a Democratic
governor and Congressman, unless our prohibition plank prevents
him from so doing. His counselor, Anthony W. Ivins, is a very able
and potential factor in the affairs of Utah. He has always been a
very fine and loyal Democrat, and by the way is not friendly to
Senator Smoot politically and I don’t think he has ever voted for
him or advocated his election. President Grant and Ivins are first
cousins. His (Ivins) people are from New Jersey. Mayor Ivins of
New York was a first cousin. I thought you might like to know some
of these things, as you are likely to meet him. When you go to Utah,
you may have an opportunity of telling him of your pleasure in
knowing something of his immovable devotion to Democracy.

“Brigham Young was very practical and encouraged all kinds
of home industries including manufacturing. He himself was
engaged in it and was a prime leader in it. His slogan was ‘Support
Home Industry.’ Brigham Young advocated the support of home
industry so much and so strongly that it was easy for the Republi-
cans to take that as a battle cry and apply it to national manufac-
tures as well as local, and likewise the maintenance of a home
market. That coupled with the manifest discrimination of the
Cleveland Tariff against practically all of our Utah industries,
together with the action of the leaders of the Church in seeking to
effect a real division on national party lines, resulted in a strong
movement to build up a Republican Party, notwithstanding the
fact that the local Republicans had been so generally anti-Mormon.
Thus the Republicans became dominant. Nothing but the Mor-
mon leaders and the tariff could have effected that result. In my

Chapter 8

opinion we would probably have held Utah notwithstanding the
Mormon leadership but for the tariff.

“President Joseph F. Smith was a strong Republican. The
activity of the leaders of the Church in the interest of the Repub-
lican Party was justified on the ground that many of the people did
not really know whether they were Democrats or not on the issues
other than the right to self-government. That question was settled
in 1895 when statehood was secured. If the Mormon leaders had
not stemmed the tide or broken up the movement which was
carrying the Mormons generally into the Democratic Party, when
division on national party lines occurred, it would have resulted in
the old fight over again, under the new name, Mormons as
Democracy and non-Mormons as Republicans. That movement
was carried on until the overwhelming Democratic majority be-
came a minority, and put Utah in the Vermont class. Ever since
the Utah and Vermont episode, Democracy has been on the
up-grade in Utah. The people are getting back to their first love.

“What the declaration in favor of the repeal of the Eighteenth
Amendment will do is a very serious question, as the leaders of the
Mormon Church are practically a unit in favor of prohibition. The
orthodox Church leaders generally are with them. Temperance is
one of the most conspicuous teachings of the Mormon Church.

“I think I can speak with a longer, and more intimate acquain-
tance, with the tariff issue in Utah than any other Democrat. I have
made more of a study of that subject than any of them and have
kept in such close contact with it, that when the Underwood Bill
was under consideration I contributed my services gratis and
worked intimately for a week or more with Senator Walsh, of
Montana, to induce the Democratic Congress to give the West a
square deal. That was all we asked. Senator Underwood was fully
converted and declared that he was with us but he said the
President had yielded on a number of things, but was adamant in
his determination to place our products on the free list, as raw
materials, no matter how much they were manufactured. That, of
course, included sugar, lead, wool, meat, mining, and agriculture
products.

“My Democracy was so strong that I have always stayed with
my party and worked consistently in its interests, but I did say to
262 Mr. Underwood and others that I never again would support

Mission President

measures that were calculated to make ‘hewers of wood and
carriers of water’ out of Westerners for the benefit of eastern
manufacturers.

“Five years ago when the movement was on to nominate
Governor Smith, whom I opposed, I was invited to meet with the
gatherings in his interest, particularly in Ogden, Utah. There I
proposed what was extended somewhat in a movement to demand
a fair tariff on western products, if we were going to have a tariff
on eastern products. That was brought to the attention of Gover-
nor Smith. His declarations on the subject in favor of justice to all
sections of the country, etc., made it much easier, than would
otherwise have been the case, to support him. I strongly commend
Governor Smith's declaration on that subject to your favorable
consideration.

“Though personal, and in justification of what I am saying
concerning myself and the appeal I make, and possibly some
vanity, 1 will take the liberty of letting you know that as a student
at Ann Arbor I attended every minute of the convention that first
nominated Cleveland, and I have attended most of them since, and
taken part in all of the campaigns. As State Chairman I conducted
two very successful campaigns in Utah in the 1890s, and when the
party was languishing in the depths of defeat and despair, I again
accepted the chairmanship in 1910, when we did not control a
county in the State, and had but two members in the legislature,
and none in the senate. That campaign resulted in our carrying a
number of counties and we have been on the upgrade ever since.
I was the Democratic candidate for governor in 1900 and 1904 and
came nearly defeating Senator Smoot for the Senate in 1914. If
you get next to President Ivins, who has been a close political
observer and very much interested, he is liable to tell you what he
has told me, that I actually defeated Senator Smoot in 1914, when
he was believed to be invincible.

“I refer to these things because I am ever anxious possibly to
impress on you, not only in this campaign but when you become
President, the fact that the West is entitled to a square deal on the
tariff, which it has never had under a Democratic administration.

“For fear that you might think I have some personal interest
to serve, I am pleased to say that I never was a candidate for an
appointment either state or federal and do not expect to be. My
position in the Treasury Department was not only unsought but

263

Chapter 8

accepted with some reluctance, and not until the President urged
it upon me, in an appealing telegram. I do, however, want to assist
you now, and to be of service to Utah when you are President .” 20

As I was soon to learn, the new President took my offer in that
last sentence literally . 21

20 “Memorandum, prepared by James H. Moyle, at the Request of Gov.
Roosevelt, August 29, 1932,” Box 1, fd 8.

21 See below, chap. 9.

264

Chapter 9

NEW DEALER

/Editor’s Note: Shortly after the inauguration of Franklin D. Roosevelt in
March 1933, the new president requested that Moyle visit him in the White House.
Following a lengthy personal interview, the president asked Moyle to join the
administration and sent him to see fames A. Farley, Postmaster General and
dispenser of patronage. Farley persuaded the seventy-five-year-old Utahn to head
the Customs Bureau as Commissioner of Customs. Following consultation with
Mormon leaders, Moyle moved from New York to Washington and directly from
his mission presidency into renewed government service.]

Something of which I will always be proud and which is
extremely gratifying is President Roosevelt’s high regard and
respect for me. I say that in humility, but I had several evidences
of it. For example. Tariff Commissioner Edgar Brossard of Utah
wrote to me in 1938 the following letter that demonstrates the
source of my pride and also tells an interesting story about the
origins of our wide streets in Salt Lake City:

“I had a forty-five minute visit with President Roosevelt yester-
day. He was very warm, friendly, and cordial, and we had a very
good visit. He would not let anyone interrupt us. Several times
when one of his secretaries or someone started to come through
the door he motioned them out and told them to wait a few
minutes. We discussed many topics and persons. In the course of
our discussion he brought up your name. He said, ‘You know,
Judge James H. Moyle is another grand Utahn. He is a good
personal friend of mine. I like him immensely. He was Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury in President Wilson’s time when I was

265

Chapter 9

Assistant Secretary of the Navy. I got to know him well. He is a
wonderful character.’

“He brought up the question of the Mormon Church. Among
many other complimentary things he said about the Church was
this: ‘You know, the Mormon Church is one of the finest— the finest
organizations we have in the United States. It has done a wonderful
piece of work for its members.’ He then went on to tell me how
Salt Lake City came to have such wide streets and told me the same
story, I think, that he told you. He said that his fourth cousin, James
Roosevelt, then an old man, met him in Georgia one day and told
him the story about how two young Mormon converts from Florida
were going horseback to join the Mormon pioneers in Illinois to
cross the desert with them to Salt Lake. They stopped in Macon.
While there the hotel with the stables and everything where they
stayed burned up destroying their horses and all their possessions.
They had to stay and work to get additional horses and clothes.
While they were in Macon the city, after this big fire which had
almost entirely destroyed it, was being rebuilt. They decided to
build the streets wide enough so that another time the flames could
not jump across the street from building to building so they made
the streets two hundred feet wide. These two young converts
continued on their journey to Nauvoo and thence to Salt Lake with
the Brigham Young party. When they were laying out Salt Lake
City the plans called for streets like in other New England towns—
no wider. These two young men thought they should tell Brigham
Young what had happened in Macon, Georgia, and how they
profited by it and laid out the new city with streets two hundred
feet wide. Brigham Young thought the idea was a good one and
changed the plans adopting the wide streets as in Macon, and that
is how Salt Lake City came to have unusually wide streets which is
the comment of everybody who visits there now that the automo-
bile is in such popular use. The President agreed that it was a good
historical fact if true and he said his fourth cousin, James
Roosevelt, told it to him as a fact .” 1

1 Edgar B. Brossard to James H. Moyle, 9 June 1938, Box 3, fd 5; James Henry
Moyle Collection, Library-Archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, hereinafter cited as CLA. All references hereinafter
to box and folder (fd) are for items from this collection.

266

New Dealer

Commissioner of Customs

With the President’s manifest confidence, I entered upon my
duties as Commissioner of Customs with an eye for reform and
efficiency. On my first visit to a port, namely Boston, in 1933, I
discovered that the clean content of wool was determined by
examiners’ estimates. 1 consequently installed in 1934 a wool
scouring plant in the appraiser’s store in New York at a cost of
$5,568 for scientifically ascertaining the clean content of wool, that
being the basis upon which the tariff is collected. It was the first
scientific or mechanical method of determining the clean content
of wool used by the government of any country. This plant
removed substantially the element of uncertainty in contested
cases. The plant being novel and in the nature of an experiment
to determine the practicability of improving the method of ascer-
taining the clean content of wool and checking on examiners’
estimates, the expense was kept at a minimum. After an extended
investigation of the subject by a Mr. Ballinger, the Treasury effi-
ciency expert, I recommended in 1938 an enlargement of the plant
to a cost of $50,000 if necessary in order that all samples might be
tested and not merely those contested. Dr. Wollner is now making
an exhaustive study of the subject and proposes further develop-
ments including a scientific method of securing samples of wool
to be tested.

On December 24, 1934, I reported to Assistant Secretary
Gibbons die gross lack of supervision in the examination of
tobacco and substantial losses sustained by the too frequent clas-
sification of wrapper tobacco as filler tobacco which is imported
in bales, with the two classes of tobacco indiscriminately intermin-
gled. Filler tobacco then paid a duty of 35 cents a pound, and
wrapper tobacco $2,275. Now, under the treaty with Cuba, the
duty is reduced on filler tobacco to 17 1/2 cents and wrapper
tobacco, $1.50 a pound. A survey I had made showed variations of
from 1 to 30 percent on returns of wrapper tobacco by different
examiners.

I found that there was practically no direct personal supervi-
sion of examiners at the different ports. Samples of tobacco were
submitted to the supervising examiner at New York City. He is and
has been in very poor health. Other important duties chiefly, but
also his health, compelled him to remain in New York.

267

Chapter 9

I therefore recommended in December 1934 that Mr. Zeliff
be appointed supervising tobacco examiner and that he speid
such time as might be necessary, authorized by the Commission-r,
in visiting various tobacco ports, instructing examiners, seeing tlat
the regulations were followed and the revenue protected, and tlat
the remainder of his time be devoted to his regular duties at
Tampa, Florida. Zeluff was of the opinion that he should carry *n
his duties previously performed, and at the same time make strh
visits of inspection as would be necessary. That recommendatim
has not been approved so far, but should be.

The lack of close supervision of field officers was early in-
pressed upon me in another way when the port and bureau officers
recommended, and the district attorney at San Francisco inftr-
mally approved, the acceptance of $47,000 in settlement of tie
Government’s claim in connection with excessive refunds paid m
tomatoes alleged to have been spoiled and abandoned. Not beiig
satisfied, I made a personal investigation of the matter at Sat
Francisco and with the cooperation of the district attorney aid
local customs officers we succeeded in having the offer increased
to $108,634. As a result of my investigation a deputy collector n
charge, who was an old and honored officer and who had been a
candidate for the assistant collectorship, was demoted to inspec-
tor, one inspector was demoted to laborer, and two inspector
were suspended. This disciplinary action placed the inspectien
force at San Francisco on a much higher plane. That acticn
resulted in reducing the amount of such refunds of tariff paid cn
spoiled tomatoes imported at San Francisco from around 30
percent of the duty paid to less than 1 percent, which exposed tie
enormity of the fraud that had been previously carried on.

When the Baylor cattle case from Eagle Pass in the El Paso,
Texas, District arose in the Bureau, April 26, 1934, 1 discovered
that we did not have cattle scales there and at a number of other
cattle ports. Then I also discovered that the importer’s invoices
were very generally accepted and no business-like effort was made
to determine the exact weights. The Baylor importation was or-
dered weighed at an interior port, disclosing that the loss of duty
on the one shipment was more than sufficient to pay for two
adequate scales where only one was needed. I had scales promptly
installed at a number of ports, and that policy was followed where
268 needed ever since.

New Dealer

On December 28, 1934, 1 called the Department’s attention to
the fact that there was no centralized and active supervision of
appraising activities generally and recommended the separation
of appraiser. This recommendation was approved in June, 1937,
two-and-one-half years later, and the present organization is con-
sidered an outstanding accomplishment.

Appreciating the fact that closer supervision of the field force
was needed, I formally recommended on January 25, 1935, that
four customs agents-at-large be appointed to serve under the
immediate direction of the Commissioner to operate as his “eyes
and ears” in the field with a view of increasing efficiency, economy,
and administrative effectiveness, their work to be supplemental to
the port examiner’s work. This recommendation was orally re-
newed repeatedly but was not approved until June 1939, more than
four years later, when the Secretary directed that nine liaison
officers be appointed including the port examiners to operate, as
1 had recommended, as the eyes and ears of the Commissioner in
the field. The reason it took four years for my suggestion to go
through was due to the fear that it would cost more than the
reform was worth.

For a year and a half I persisted in urging establishment of a
customs correspondence school for the purpose of educating and
training customs officers for their duties. The establishment of the
school was finally approved in 1935 and is now an outstanding
success commended by all.

During a trip to Europe in the spring of 1936, 1 found that our
foreign offices were operated independently of each other with no
official contact between them or supervision over them except
from Washington. On July 1, 1936, I recommended that Treasury
Attache Wait at Paris be assigned the duty to inspect or visit and
advise with the chiefs of the other offices as to their problems and
methods of doing business once a year or whenever he deemed it
advisable. Immediately following my report on the subject, the
Secretary enlarged upon the plan suggested, appointed Treasury
Attache Wait in charge of the European offices, designating him
supervising Treasury Attache and giving him supervisory powers
over all the offices. That is what 1 wanted and recommended orally.
All of the offices in Europe were opposed to the idea, so I made

269

Chapter 9

my recommendation to the Secretary personally to insure some-
thing being done without too much bureaucratic complaining.

In the same report I pointed out that our foreign repre-
sentatives had been directed to report to and act in narcotics
matters only under the direction of the Narcotics Bureau, with the
result that there was a great lack of initiative and activity on the
part of our foreign customs representatives in that connection. I
saw that if greater responsibility and freedom of action were placed
on our customs officers it would result in their greater activity in
narcotics cases and a more efficient prosecution of those engaged
in the illicit traffic. I merely submitted the facts, however, stating
that I did not feel free to make any recommendation on the subject
as it was a problem involving two bureaus of the Treasury Depart-
ment and another department of the Government. Soon after the
submission of this report the narcotics work in Europe was trans-
ferred from the Narcotics Bureau to the Customs Bureau.

In the course of my visits to the customs ports I discovered
that there was no orderly policy for providing understudies to
important positions in the service and that promotions were made
on seniority where men were fairly well qualified. This not infre-
quently resulted, as I first discovered at New Orleans, in important
positions being filled by employees approaching retirement age.
On November 9, 1935, I issued a circular letter directing all field
officers to select and forward to the Bureau for consideration the
names of understudies for key positions for any vacancies that
might arise due to retirement or dismissals.

My observation of the independence of each European office
and complete lack of supervision was a continuation of the obser-
vations I made and expressed when I visited the border ports from
Lake Superior to Idaho in the summer of 1935 and learned that
there was no connecting link between the customs districts or
supervision over them except from Washington and such occa-
sional visits as were made by customs agents without any recog-
nized effort at coordinating the work, particularly with respect to
preventing the smuggling of narcotics from the Orient through
Pacific Coast ports. At the close of this inspection trip at Great
Falls, Montana, I met Agent Bailey who had recently completed a
survey of the port of San Francisco with a view of reorganizing the
outside force to insure a more effective enforcement of the smug-
gling laws. At that interview we agreed that greater efficiency

270

New Dealer

would result if there were a coordination of activities of all the
Pacific Coast ports. Upon my return to Washington, I discussed
this matter with other Bureau officers and on October 9, 1935, I
authorized Agent Bailey to make a survey of the Pacific Coast ports
and to submit recommendations which would in his opinion result
in a more effective policy of unified enforcement along the Pacific
Coast. This survey was completed on January 26, 1926, and a
report submitted thereon dated March 3, 1936.

Duringjuly 1936, Agent Bailey was directed to take charge of
the activities on the Pacific Coast in the capacity of chief intelli-
gence officer and advisor to the various collectors of customs.
Subsequently, a plan of coordination to prevent narcotics smug-
gling was also set up on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. This
coordination work has greatly minimized smuggling.

In my report in February 1937, 1 called attention to an anoma-
lous condition existing in the Customs Bureau. I estimated that
more than 75 percent of the work of the legal unit performed
under the direction of the general counsel of the Department was
in fact administrative. Ballinger’s committee found later on a more
complete investigation that it was about 85 percent. On March 16,
1939, two years later, the chief counsel and about 85 percent of
the attorneys were transferred from the Office of the General
Counsel of the Department to the Customs Bureau, and the
Division of Tariff Administration was established with the chief
counsel in charge as a deputy commissioner of customs.

During my trip on the northern border in the summer of 1935
I discovered the desirability of pistol matches to better qualify our
men for enforcement work. I returned to Washington enthusias-
tically advocating in the Bureau the need for these matches and
was advised that there was no money that could be used for that
purpose. Later Secretary Morgenthau learned of the situation
(from whom I do not know) and became much interested and
found the money for this purpose, much to the credit of his
administration.

I persistently urged that the $100 exemption accorded travel-
ers returning from Canada be restricted to those who had re-
mained in Canada at least 48 hours. This restriction was written
into the Customs Administrative Act of 1938.

In April and July, 1936, 1 recommended that Treasury attaches

271

Chapter 9

be given diplomatic status to assist them in the prosecution of their
work. I took this matter up with the American Ambassadors at
Paris, London, Berlin, and Vienna, and enlisted their aid. There-
after, additional privileges were accorded our foreign repre-
sentatives.

I made, as had never been done before by any Bureau officer,
a personal inspection of all border ports and stations resulting in
obtaining a more intimate acquaintance with the officers in remote
places and making needed changes and effecting economies,
including abolishing a number of unnecessary stations on the
border, and other activities which have benefited the bureau,
notably the establishment of greater uniformity of action in impos-
ing penalties and greater attention being given generally to cases
involving failure of travelers to report when crossing the border.
I discovered that heavy or very slight penalties were imposed in
one district, while the opposite occurred in other districts for
identically the same offense. I consequently enlisted the aid of the
Canadian Commissioner of Customs in the latter regard with the
result that Canadian officers have been directed to advise travelers
that it is necessary to report on the American side. 1 authorized
installation of more appropriate signs and notices of requirement
to report and the most effective of all the placing of red lights over
the roads at the active stations. The chief excuse of travelers for
not reporting was that they did not know it was necessary to report,
or did not see the customs station.

In the interest of closer supervision of motorboats, some of
which had been used extensively in smuggling liquor during
prohibition, I recommended more rigid enforcement of the law
requiring stricter registration of new and old motorboats upon
transfer of ownership, and that a fee be charged of one dollar
and up according to capacity and value, much the same as auto-
mobiles are licensed, thereby creating a source of revenue and
at the same time insuring closer supervision over such boats. This
work involved some 300,000 boats. This matter was referred to
the Department of Commerce which has jurisdiction over such
matters.

One of my broadest policies in the Bureau was strict econ-
omy. For example, I decreased the Commissioner’s office per-
sonnel from six to two and a part-time officer. My predecessor
272 had a secretary and three stenographer clerks, an executive as-

New Dealer

sistant, and a chief clerk— six. My force consisted of the same
secretary and one stenographer clerk with only occasional assis-
tance from another stenographer, and a Mr. Benner who acted
at the same time as deputy commissioner in charge of adminis-
trative matters. In addition to the foregoing, I abolished the office
of stenographer for the Bureau (salary $2300) and reduced the
personnel of the Division of Mails and Files from thirty-six to
twenty-three and at the same time increased the efficiency of that
service.'

Moving Upstairs

In 1939, it was easy to see that the war was about to involve
the United States and international shipping problems were then
some of the most delicate and troublesome confronting the De-
partment, and were giving the President concern. No ship could
enter or depart from the country without reporting to and obtain-
ing the approval of the Customs Bureau. It was therefore pivotal
in the government service involved. An expert on ships and
shipping of a high order was needed, and to obtain such, the vice
president of the United States Shipping Company, a $25,000-a-year
man, was induced to accept the place as a patriotic duty at $ 10,000
a year, and that was a high salary in the government. He was not
only placed at the head of the Customs Bureau but made a special
assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury with an office near the
Secretary as well as in the Bureau. At the same time he became an
advisor of the President. And I was made an assistant to the
Secretary.

How far my age (nearly eighty-two) figured in this change, I
do not know, but I know that it would have been very serious
for any mistakes to occur in the Bureau both for the nation and
for the Secretary, as he was a very nervous man. But since I was
never an efficiency expert and because I was a man of my age,
it is significant that they subsequently gave me the assignment
of studying and reporting improvements that might be made in
the savings bond business, because it had grown so rapidly. It
then had a billion-dollar-a-year business and was on the way to
becoming (as it since has) a monstrous affair, especially if the

2 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1.

273

Chapter 9

United States entered the war. And President Roosevelt was pre-
paring for that eventuality as fast as Congress would permit.

I believe I was selected for that work because of my efforts
during the Wilson administration and in my service as Commis-
sioner of Customs to reduce waste and to upgrade efficiency. I
think the Secretary was particularly mindful of my recommenda-
tions to abolish the national bank notes and to reduce the size of
paper money, and so on. I may be overly appreciative of my good
judgment, but I think Roosevelt and Morgenthau believed I could
come up with some good ideas for improving the bond effort, and
I believe I did. 3

From the Ranks of the Obscure

It is remarkable that Roosevelt selected a number of his chief
aides from the ranks of the unknown and obscure, the most
notable of which were Morgenthau and our own Marriner Eccles
of Utah. Prior to his being called to Washington by the President,
Secretary Morgenthau had held no office or place in public life
except New York state forester when Roosevelt was governor,
and precinct chairman in the Democratic Party of Duchess
County. He was a graduate of Cornell, and in business a dairy
farmer, though his father was one of the wealthy real estate
owners of New York City and a former ambassador to Turkey. I
had never heard of him before his coming to Washington in the
1930s except that he had a fine herd of Holsteins, which I had
learned from the Holstein Journal. In a conversation with Senator
Carter Glass, the dean and seer of the Senate under whom I had
served in the Treasury, I learned that Glass was shocked at the
appointment of Morgenthau as Secretary and that Morgenthau’s
own father was quite as much shocked. Apparently, his aged
father had never entrusted him with his own business. (The
Senator did not contemplate that this comment would be pub-
lished, though he placed no restrictions on it.) Morgenthau did
not have a popular appeal. I doubt that he could have gotten
anywhere at the political polls. He was of a nervous, suspicious
nature, and did not get along well with his subordinates, of which
he had many, until he selected a civil service man, a department

274

3 Memorandum dated Nov. 1945, Box 13, fd 3.

New Dealer

career man. The Secretary was a very poor speaker and did not
appear to be bold, but he did act affirmatively in staff matters . 4

Morgenthau was chosen, I think, because he was Roosevelt’s
friend and neighbor in Duchess County, though their farms are
well apart, and evidently because Roosevelt saw more in him than
others did, even his own father. I think he is an only son. Anyway,
it was said in Washington that the President was his own Secretary
of the Treasury and Labor, but in spite of it all, Morgenthau seems
to have weathered the blasts and made an acceptable Secretary of
the Treasury. Eccles, though previously unknown outside of north-
ern Utah and southern Idaho, and among the bankers of the state,
and never a Democrat so far as I know or any members of his family
(and I knew his father well), has made his way and is a great credit
to his state. He is strictly business and attends to his own knitting,
and has had very little to do with the people of Utah.

These two men, Eccles and Morgenthau, illustrate something
of the originality and courage of our great President. Morgenthau
was appointed chiefly because of friendship and Roosevelt’s trust
in his loyalty and the President’s uncanny understanding of men.
Eccles was an apparent stranger, exhibiting in an obscure way
progressive ideals that chanced to come to the President, probably
through another obscurity. Secretary of War George H. Dern, also
from Utah, the state never before recognized with a cabinet
position. The two of them were from a state with little more than
a half million population.

The President knew Dern as a fellow governor and as a distinct
progressive. That was a real touchstone with Roosevelt. He was
certainly hipped on progressives, especially if they showed origi-
nality, but Dern was, like his father, a very substantial man. There
was nothing in his administration as governor or Secretary of War
that indicated reform or originality. He just went along satisfacto-
rily without making mistakes. He was conservative rather than

4 Memorandum dated Nov. 1945, Box 13, fd 2. See Dean L. May, “From New
Deal to New Economics: The Response of Henry Morgenthau, Jr., and Marriner S. Ec-
cles to the Recession of 1937,” Ph.D. diss., Brown University, 1974, pp. 27-109; John
Morton Blum, From the Morgenthau Diaries, 3 vols. to date (Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Co., 1959-67); Marriner S. Eccles, Beckoning Frontiers: Public and Personal Recollections,
ed. by Sidney Hyman (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1951).

Chapter 9

radical, but his ideas and reading were in full sympathy with the
progressives and the President. 5

Cordell Hull and Daniel C. Roper

I enjoyed the opportunity of associating with other prominent
New Deal figures. For example, in my relations and work with
Cordell Hull, the Secretary of State, I was very impressed with his
comparatively quiet, modest, and unostentatious but firm and
emphatic decisions. He was a clean character and a straight,
forthright thinker, and his public life endeared him to those who
knew him. He is now (October 1944) in Moscow on probably the
most important mission of his life. Upon its results much depends,
but he always has been safe and extremely capable and in my
opinion always will be. His long career as Congressman, Chairman
of the Democratic Party, Senator, and for nearly eleven years
Secretary of State justified all the best that can be said of him,
notwithstanding there is nothing in his career that is brilliant or
showy. His consistency, persistence, and continuous usefulness are
(like labor) his great genius. 6

I can think of no greater tribute to him than the fact that I
could say to President David O. McKay, when he wanted me to
talk to President Roosevelt about saving Clearfield from the loss
of about a thousand acres of its best parts, that I could not take
up such a detail with the President without some embarrassment
in view of the decisions reached, but I could freely discuss it with
Secretary Hull. And if my request was not inconsistent or unwise

I could rely on his doing what he could to aid us. If he felt it
would be fair to the President and justifiable, I would be able to
talk to the President. I am sure any friend, however humble,
would feel the same. Notwithstanding the obstacles to going
directly to important officials in Washington, I would, while rec-

5 Memorandum dated Nov. 1945, Box 13, fd 2.

( ’ Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2. It is possible that Moyle misdated
this memorandum, because though Hull was in Moscow in October 1944, the work
there (“the Second Moscow Conference") pertained exclusively to Great Britain and
the Soviet Union. Much more significant to Hull’s role in the summitry of World War

II was the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers held in October 1943. From this
meeting emerged the Moscow Declaration, an important precursor to the estab-
lishment of the United Nations.

276

New Dealer

ognizing my retirement and obscurity, not hesitate to walk in on
and surprise the Secretary with a subject of comparative unim-
portance. I believe such to be his tolerant, genial, and simple life,
and his characteristics; there is nothing pompous or aristocratic
about him.'

Daniel C. Roper, a South Carolina lawyer, was Commissioner
of Internal Revenue and Secretary of Commerce under Roosevelt.
He did not reach the peak Hull did but was the same type of
person. I was more intimate with him because his time and
positions in office were more nearly the same as mine. He spent
pretty much all of his life in Washington, and was a man of fine
spiritual as well as intellectual character. Roper was also McAdoo’s
political manager, which brought me into closer relationship with
him. He was a bright light in the firmament of Washington.

Both Hull and Roper were two men in Washington to whom
I freely went with my political problems and never failed to receive
a warm welcome. Mrs. Moyle was on the intimate social list of Mrs.
Hull and Mrs. Roper. Roper was more socially inclined than Hull,
though the latter went along with his wife. Hull was more at home
at work and shined when so engaged. I knew quite well many other
New Dealers, but Hull and Roper were my most intimate associates
in the administration . 7 8

The Church Security Program

While I served under Roosevelt, my relationship with the
Church entered some new conflicts and at the same time some
new meanings. I was in London on customs business when the
Church announced the Church Security Program (now Church
Welfare Plan). When I arrived at the United States Customs office
the next morning, someone handed me a bulletin that was sent to
all British offices concerning the announcement of the day before
of what the Mormons were going to do in social service and
welfare. On my return to Washington, I was delighted beyond
measure to see the Church plan reported in the newsreel in a

7 Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2. See Leonard J. Arrington and
Archer L. Durham, “Anchors Aweigh in Utah: The U.S. Naval Supply Depot at Clear-
field, 1942-1962,” Utah Historical Quarterly 31 (1963): 109-26.

8 Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2.

277

Chapter 9

leading movie house. No other church, however rich, could dare
to undertake the task of providing for the necessities of life for all
of its needy members, especially in this nation where the high
standard of living requires such a quality and quantity of materials.
More impressive still is the fact that welfare is not all that Mormon-
ism attempted during that period of great human danger. It used
all of the moral suasion it had at its command to induce its
members to abandon the generosities of government in favor of
its provision for the needy. The pressure was so great that it tried
the faith of many who disagreed with the Church’s strict ideas
about personal and economic responsibility. The Church will
provide only what is needed and damns idleness and lack of thrift,
and denounces anything that encourages dependence where inde-
pendence can be maintained . 9 10

There can be no doubt about the correctness of the Church
position. The only question is its practicability and justice to the
taxpayer, who pays the government for making the liberal contri-
bution to charity and who also pays one-tenth of his income to the
Church for the same and other objectives. The Church, with its
more perfect inexpensive organization, can do what the govern-
ment cannot— discriminate among the needy according to need. It
also urges the preservation of the highest order of manhood, that
its members who are able should take care of their own and
thereby dignify the independence of manhood. Let him who will
not work not eat the bread of the laborer."’

If the Church continues its efforts, and its officers claim it is
making real progress, it will be a phenomenon that will startle the
world more than its original announcement did, and the movies
will report it as one of the great achievements of the time. Indeed
it would be one, but it now seems destined to failure. It runs so
counter to man’s self interest, but selfishness is what Christianity

9 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. See Leonard J. Arrington and
Wayne K. Hinton, “Origin of the Welfare Plan of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints,” Brigham, Young University Studies 5 (Winter 1964): 67-85; Garth L. Man-
gum and Bruce D. Blumell, The Mormons' War on Poverty (Salt Lake City: University of
Utah Press, 1993), pp. 130-47.

10 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. As Moyle wrote this passage,
his oldest son, Henry D. Moyle, was serving as chair of the Church Welfare Commit-
tee.

278

New Dealer

teaches man to overcome. I hope the Church will succeed. I find
no trouble in contributing, as is the case with so many of the active
members. I regard paying taxes (much as it hurts) as vital to a real
Christian as paying tithing, which is, nevertheless, older than the
modern system of taxation. All organized societies have had to
have contributions of some kind. It is, however, a little less than
marvelous how the Church gets so much real work done beyond
the contribution of money and goods. Men who work all day for
their living spend several hours at night continuing to work in all
kinds of physical and mental energy to aid the needy and keep up
the welfare projects and welfare centers the new system has
established. All that work is freely given. It looks doubtful to me
that that can be continued except under the pressure of real
exciting need. Ordinary need will not be enough unless the spiri-
tual overcomes the physical. That is possible, but more improb-
able, for natural law would seem to deny its continued success."

A Bold Challenge

There is something about that bold challenge of this Church
with only a million or less members (and poor people generally at
that) demanding that Mormons all get off the government rolls
and get on to the Church aid rolls. It appears, if I understand the
situation correctly, to be real coercion. I believe that bold challenge
is a cause of amazement. I would rather (if viewing the matter
practically) use the money to build up enterprises that would
furnish work for those aided by the government, make their places
of worship and entertainment more attractive, increase the social
environment, and at the same time build up industry and the
advancement of knowledge and intelligence. That would build up
better and higher ideals and would be far better than the govern-
ment policy of putting men on the charity dole merely because
they were sixty-five years old, or because they were unemployed.
That is the commendable aim of the Church and I admire it. But
it is only a part of my amazement. While the Church thus puts itself
in competition with the government in doing that which is the aim
of both, through its Deseret News it champions the cause of return-

11 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1.

Chapter 9

ing to the good old doctrines of Harding’s “return to normalcy”
in its hatred for the enlightened policies of the New Deal. iJ

I am deeply interested in the rivalry between the leadership
of the Church and its welfare system and the present system of
social welfare of the state and nation. The former seeks to pre-
serve the independence and self-respect of the individual, to
preserve his desire to work, to be thrifty and industrious and
contribute his might to production and enterprise and the up-
building of a desirable social and economic society. The reforms
of the New Deal of the early 1930s, however good or bad, cer-
tainly preceded and stimulated the most commendable and
world-stirring welfare work of the Church in harmony with its
ideals from its origin. It looks very much like a new David with
his sling trying to outdo the giant Goliath and set an example
for the greatest nation on earth in its Herculean effort to solve
the problem of unemployment and social justice. My regret is
that the movement was not started before 1933 rather than after
1935, and that the leadership of the Church has exhibited such
an intolerant opposition to the leadership of Roosevelt as the
President of our great nation, and his effort (however imperfect)
to promote social welfare and economic justice, in opposition to
the domination of wealth in our great and progressive nation.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt has turned his back on the domi-
nating class of wealth into which he was born and therefore has
its unbounded opposition and violent hatred. And he has with a
whole heart turned his face toward the uplifting of the common
man like his great predecessors, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham
Lincoln.

A Vital Part of Mormonism

All my life I have been a believer in Jesus Christ, the Savior
of all, and his great modern prophet, Joseph Smith, and have
tried successfully to believe in the social system Christ instituted
that was evidently aimed at having no rich or poor. It was not
so difficult to establish that system because of the belief that the
all-wise, martyred King was soon to return and firmly establish
His Kingdom over all. It lasted for a while in some form, but

280

12 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 1, fd 3.

New Dealer

gradually disappeared as it became more apparent that the return
of the Savior and King was not to be in the time of those living.
The same ideal, generally called the United Order of God, was
again revealed to the great American prophet of God, Joseph
Smith, over a hundred years ago and an attempt made to rees-
tablish it. Like its predecessor it soon yielded to the presence of
human, selfish weakness before the Prophet’s martyrdom. The
law of tithing, like the law of carnal commandments of lesser law
of Israel, was accepted in the place of the Gospel in its fullness.

As a young man in the 1870s I witnessed the effort of
Brigham Young to establish the United Order. It was a real effort
on the part of a very few. President Young, though he encouraged
it, did not join it himself. What the inducement was I do not
know, but it kept alive the belief in it and the determination to
live it someday. Brigham Young’s clear vision apparently was that
the jury existed and the trial was worthwhile. This was during his
last years and poor health. Had he been in good health and lived
longer the movement would doubtless have gone farther. It was
for a few years a real success, and set a real example of what
could be done, for there was in those days a living, vital faith
that needed a Brigham Young to guide it.

But it survived his day in spirit and its importance was im-
pressed upon me shortly after I left the Eastern States Mission in
1933, and was living in Washington. The new and beautiful chapel
there was the pride of its occupants. It attracted the favorable
attention of many people of importance, among them Vice Presi-
dent Henry A. Wallace who was then Secretary of Agriculture. He
happened to attend a Sunday meeting there and the speaker was
Judge Gustave Iverson. Branch President Edgar Brossard, a promi-
nent member of the Tariff Commission, asked me to entertain the
Vice President at the meeting. He was accompanied by his aide, a
friendly Utahn, who had accompanied the Secretary on a social
research visit to Utah in which Wallace, according to the aide,
exhibited much interest in the social history of Mormonism, and
particularly its United Order in Utah. He visited Southern Utah,
taking in Orderville where the United Order was set up on the
grassroots of the sagebrush. The Secretary’s attendant informed
me that his chief was greatly interested and valued the trip and was
greatly impressed with the experiment. Here was the Vice Presi-

281

Chapter 9

dent, the foremost social reformer of this country, deeply im-
pressed with the social order and conceptions of the Mormons.
The United Order in Utah, like that of Missouri and Ohio, did not
live long, but it is just the same a vital part of Mormonism and will
some day flourish as such. That is as certain as the divinity of the
golden rule. 1 ’

A Politico-Religious Puzzle

What puzzles me is why the members of the First Presidency
of the Church are so violently and uncompromisingly opposed to
the New Deal reforms which have so much of the golden rule in
them. I am surprised in view of my intimacy with President Grant
that I have never asked him to explain that opposition, and just
how, when, and why the Church’s present social welfare program
was instituted following and not preceding that of the government,
and why the violent opposition to Roosevelt, and I say “violent”
advisedly. 1 can understand why there is opposition, but why so
violent? Personally, I believe that President Clark is largely respon-
sible for the violent phase of the question, because of his unrea-
sonable opposition to the Democratic Party and its policies. But
did not the New Deal reforms inspire the institution of the Church
Welfare System? If so, did that inspiration have anything to do with
the hatred for the New Deal?"

In my opinion President Grant was a conservative Democrat
up to the time of the death of his counselor and greatly-loved
cousin, Anthony W. Ivins, in 1934. At least he thought he was and
consistently called himself a Democrat. It is true that he admitted
having voted only for Republican Presidents except once for
Woodrow Wilson. That was when he kept us out of the war
temporarily. I do not know whether he might have voted for
Roosevelt in 1932, but I presume he voted for Hoover the second

13 Memorandum dated July 1944, Box 10, fd 7. Wallace’s impressions of Mor-
monism apparently went beyond the casual observation of the United Order in Utah.
For example, he once said that “of all the American books of the 19th Century, it
seems probable that the Book of Mormon was the most powerful. It reached perhaps
only one percent of the United States, but it affected that one percent so powerfully
and lastingly, that all the people of the United States have been affected.” New York
Times, 5 Nov. 1937.

14 Memorandum dated July 1944, Box 10, fd 7.

282

New Dealer

time. He had done so for his predecessors, Coolidge and Harding,
and I never heard of him or the Deseret News which he controlled
ever having had anything to say against even the foul, odoriferous
Harding administration. In fact, up to 1934, the uniform and
general policy of the Presidency of the Church and the Deseret News
seemed to be to support the administration in office rather than
oppose it whether Democratic or Republican. But in 1936, when
Roosevelt ran the second time, President Grant and his counselors
published sensationally a front-page editorial or boxed statement
declaring the President communistic and therefore advised its
readers to support Landon, the farmer from Kansas. I do not know
whether he was a farmer or not but I know he was not known for
his statesmanship. 15

President Grant was naturally democratic in everything except
where financial interests were involved. No man could have been
more democratic than he is in everything else. The latch string was
literally on the outside of his door; I thought too much so to avoid
interruptions and waste of time that should not occur. That was
changed when President Clark came upon the scene and the public
was fenced out. But when President Grant came to my office in
Washington, he did not have his secretary arrange for an appoint-
ment. Instead he came alone and waited to see me when I was at
liberty to do so. His informality in his home was clearly exhibited
when away from it. No public man was more open and frank, and
democratic in his private as well as public activities, but the
Democratic Party was advocating a tariff for revenue only and he
was for protection and for giving big industry the green light. As
that was a controlling factor in his political belief, he was very
largely a Republican rather than a Democrat during all his later
life and more mature years.

The change in the Church position was startlingly apparent
after the death of President Ivins. President Grant and the News
almost immediately ceased to have anything good to say about the
League of Nations, which both had previously supported heartily.
Indeed, President Grant had presided at a League of Nations rally

15 Memorandum dated Oct. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. See Frank H. Jonas, “Utah: The
Different State,” in Frank H. Jonas, ed., Politics in the American West (Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press, 1969), p. 332.

283

Chapter 9

in the Tabernacle; his heart was with the League. But in 1934, the
policy changed and the statements of the Presidency and the
Deseret News became nationalistic and against almost everything
President Roosevelt advocated. Almost all of the occupants of the
offices of the Church at 47 East South Temple Street who were
sympathetic to FDR kept quiet and those who were opposed
became very vocal. The intensity of that opposition was not ex-
ceeded anywhere, not even on Wall Street which had a bit put in
its mouth that ended the nefarious activities of its stock exchange
that had opened the door to enrich the few and filch from the
many. The only visible reason for this sudden change in Church
position I ever heard is the influence of the man selected to take
the place of Anthony W. Ivins as First Counselor, J. Reuben Clark,
Jr., an unreconstructed follower of Cabot Lodge in his isolationist
fight against the League and the splendid reforms of that great
political seer, Woodrow Wilson. 16

J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

President Clark came to his church leadership with a fine
record as a Latter-day Saint, international lawyer, and Ambassador
to Mexico. He had attained worthwhile distinctions that had come
to no other member of the Church. He was mentally equipped to
be the first man in the Church after its President and he certainly
became such in its fullness as the aged President declined in
activity. He was not lacking in spirituality and religious devotion;
I greatly admired his family. They clearly indicated a growth and
spirituality in a religious atmosphere that justified reliance on him
as a real Latter-day Saint. 1 '

I believe that Clark honestly and sincerely believes that Wood-
row Wilson was, like FDR, an evil genius in our government,

16 Memorandum dated Oct. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. Clark served as counsel to Sena-
tor Philander P. Knox, one of the “irreconcilable” who stubbornly opposed the ratifi-
cation of the Treaty of Versailles with its provision for the League of Nations. See
Janies B. Allen, “J. Reuben Clark, Jr., on American Sovereignty and Internal Organiza-
tion,” Brigham Young University Studies 13 (Spring 1973): 17-42; Frank W. Fox,/.

Reuben Clark: The Public Years (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1980), pp.
251-98.

17 Memorandum dated Oct. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. See Gene A. Sessions, Prophesy-
ing Upon the Bones: J. Reuben Clark and the Foreign Debt Crisis, 1933-39 (Urbana: Univer-
sity of Illinois Press, 1992), pp. 42-50.

284

New Dealer

undermining its very foundations, the first in destroying the
sovereignty of the God-instituted government, and the latter in
undermining the cornerstones of that nation’s social and eco-
nomic freedoms and putting in vital danger the Constitution, the
most sacred thing in our national life. In this way he justifies the
lack of any charity or tolerance for the President of the United
States, whose glory now seems fixed and certain to place him in
the ranks of Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson, the greatest
of our Presidents since Washington. What the future will unfold
is not for me to determine, but it is clear to me now that President
Clark, notwithstanding his equipment and real greatness, does not
have the fullness of the hearts of his people whom he wants to
serve. I may be and probably am wrong in my conclusions, but
time will tell. 1 *

The nearly seditious editorial policy of the Deseret News, which
Clark reputedly controls, has brought that long-revered paper into
general disrepute and probably financial loss. I know a number of
good Saints have cancelled their subscriptions, something I have
not done nor encouraged. Its religious news is worth its cost, and
it should be in every Mormon home for that reason alone, but the
Tribune is so outclassing the News that many say they get all they
need from it and do not care to support the perturbing editorial
policy of the Neius by subscribing to it . 19

I believe and trust with an immovable faith that the Lord is at
the helm of the Church and that all will be well. If the policies
credited to President Clark of which I have so disapproved even-
tually show the marks of divine guidance then I hope my readers
will see in it the divinity I lacked and President Clark enjoyed, and
if I am right that they will see in it all a passing episode of man’s
fallibility soon to be forgotten. Some very good people have left
the Church because they saw in some respect error on the part of
Church leadership, and it may have been in error. But what man
does not err? Is it not natural and universal in all men? Look at

18 Memorandum dated Oct. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. See Martin B. Hickman, “J.
Reuben Clark, Jr.: The Constitution and the Great Fundamentals,” Brigham Young Uni-
versity Studies 13 (Spring 1973): 25-42.

19 Memorandum dated Oct. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. Jonas, “The Different State,” p.
332, reports “thousands of subscriptions” lost because of this editorial policy.

285

Chapter 9

the terrible errors of the great kings, Solomon and David. Who
has done worse than Peter who denied Christ in His hour of great
trial? Did that destroy the redeeming truth or its agents or agen-
cies? Truth is truth wherever found, and the only course is to
adhere to it when it is found. Man’s human weaknesses cannot
chance the truth or justify its abandonment. The truth will tri-
umph, despite man’s mistakes." 1 ’

President Grant, Democrat or Republican?

Even without the influence of Reuben Clark, President Grant
has in recent years become more of a Republican than a Democrat.
He had repeated the statement to me and others that I have tried
to read him out of the Democratic Party. My reply is that I would
rather have him an out-and-out Republican fighting us from the
front than a Democrat fighting from the rear. But in all, the
President has given the Church a notable and successful admini-
stration and has always been on the best of terms with me, because
he knew my heart was in the right place on Church affairs, though
1 did get off politically in his opinion. He never called me to
account for it or questioned my sincerity and right to follow my
convictions. Unfortunately, however, there have been few Demo-
crats among the top leaders of the Church who have been willing
to raise their voices in protest against the flagrant intrusions of
Republican politics in Church circles. Moses Thatcher, Anthony
W. Ivins, B. H. Roberts, andj. Golden Kimball are exceptions, but
each was neutralized by some other factor. Thatcher was extreme
and was dropped front power; Ivins was emphatic but conservative;
Roberts was eloquent and forceful but backed down under great
pressure; Kimball’s objections were veiled in wit and came forth
infrequently. And there was understandably no Republican among
the Brethren who openly expressed any objection to the intrusion
of politics in religion so far as 1 know, and I observed the situation
carefully.

Equally disturbing to me was the feeling that the Democrats
among the leaders of the Church were being used to express

2 ° Memorandum dated Oct. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. See D. Michael Quinn,

J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1983),
pp. 70-94.

286

New Dealer

disapproval of Democratic policy. Evidence of this that comes
notably to mind was the case when great excitement prevailed
against President Roosevelt’s effort to “reform the Supreme
Court.” The leaders treated it as if it was something entirely new
and unbecoming and without any justification, while it in fact had
many precedents and there was abundant need for it. In the spring
of 1937 Apostlejoseph F. Merrill delivered a radio address bitterly
opposed to the President’s move and expressing the views only of
the opposition. The Brethren seemed to think generally with him
that there was only one side to that question. It well illustrates how
a lack of knowledge in the face of popular clamor unduly influ-
ences good and otherwise well-informed and well-intending per-
sons who conclude that there is only one side to a question. That
was well illustrated in that address by a one-time enthusiastic
Democrat and splendid man. That led me to write a long letter to
Elder Merrill in which I expressed my shock at his attitude and that
of the Church leadership. 21

When President Grant suffered his paralytic strokes and had
to curtail his previous activity very largely, President Clark
seemed to take over the leadership of the Church in practical
affairs, public and political relations, while President McKay be-
came conspicuous in the spiritual affairs of the Church for which
he was admirably fitted, just as President Clark was fitted by
experience, taste, and natural instinct for politics and public
affairs. Clark often refers to his try for the Senate in 1928 and
says that if the people who said they were for him really were he
would have had a walkaway. I mention this only to show how
politically minded the gentleman is. Indeed, he is regarded as
the arch-Republican leader in Utah, operating largely but not
entirely in the background. It is claimed for him by intimate
friends that he is no more partisan in his views than President
McKay, but the latter keeps it all in the background and has not
become outwardly offensive to Democrats.

President Clark is credited with the actual dominating leader-
ship of the party with his old law partner Albert E. Bowen, the
apostle, and Orval Adams, the banker, and in directing the policy
of the Deseret News in its persistent sniping and open fight against

21 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 1, fd 3.

287

Chapter 9

President Roosevelt and his administration. That paper seems to
search the political garbage cans for some example or statement
to use as an excuse to attack indirectly or directly the President.

But I emphasize again that it is generally understood that
President Grant himself is so prejudiced against President
Roosevelt that he will not listen to anything he says, and that for
one whom he respects to praise President Roosevelt in his pres-
ence raises his blood pressure seriously, because he, like President
Clark, thinks sincerely that President Roosevelt is a real enemy of
the Constitution and Government of the United States and that
he is endangering the very life of the nation. Such is the tension
as it is reliably reported about Church headquarters.

I have always been concerned over the adverse effects of the
course of conservatism such as the Church leaders seem to have
chosen. During the middle ages, men were so intent upon follow-
ing authority and tradition that it was not popular to deviate from
established usages and ideas. To innovate was objectionable, but
rather to do as had been done was the proper thing. While
traveling in 1936, we found in Palestine and more so in more
remote Damascus in Syria that such was the case to the extent that
in some communities and sections when a building was too far
gone to be used any longer, they would rebuild it as near as they
could as it had previously been. We were shown the foundation of
an old residence that was cleared for the erection on it of a new
building to be as much like the old one as possible. The buildings
in the neighborhood indicated that they were likewise preserved
with no material change being made. Improvements that consti-
tuted anything akin to innovation were omitted. Simplicity, antiq-
uity, and economy in construction were the central thoughts."

Retirement

At the end of the decade, I had decided that after eighty-two
years of life it was time to think of retiring. My resignation and
retirement were due to several causes— my age, almost eighty-two,
was prime among them. My resignation was accepted to take effect
July 19, 1940, less than two months short of my eighty-second

22 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 1, fd 3.

288

New Dealer

birthday. My health, however, was never better so that was not a
controlling factor, but my concern over it certainly was.

Mrs. Moyle and I had judiciously prepared for the day of my
retirement. In addition to a very nice home in the city, we had the
beautiful cottage at Brighton. We had concluded in 1921 that the
farm at Cottonwood would be the place where we would spend
the most time in the summer, however, so we built a cottage there
also beside the lake and made it suitable for spring and fall use
when Brighton would not be available. But my love of the outdoors
and a nearness to the mountains has always been extreme, so I
loved Brighton most of all. In spite of this, Mrs. Moyle urged giving
up Brighton and using the farm exclusively in the summer, and
that we did. We wanted to enjoy for a few years at least the
provisions we had made so many years before for our last days on
earth, and I had work to do that could only be done at my age by
retiring from active service to a place of peace.

While my investments had not been planned to produce with
certainty an income, I thought that the property we had would
carry us through. As previously stated, my investments were largely
influenced by my likes; I bought Brighton because I loved the
place. I love livestock, and consequently have considerable hold-
ings in it, but I have also invested heavily in such things as mining
and real estate, because I wanted a real stake in my native Utah
and its industries, and into the same all of the extra money that
came my way went, much of which produces no or little income.
I have lost heavily as well as made some.

The most controlling reason for resigning was a desire to be
with our children and their numerous families, and to be with our
old friends at the finish. J!

23 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 9. See additionally for the New Deal pe-
riod the following: interview with Evelyn Moyle Nelson by Gene A. Sessions, 20 June
1974, transcript of twelve pages, CLA, pp. 4-7; interview with Sara Moyle Creer by
Gene A. Sessions, 3 July 1974, transcript of nineteen pages, CLA, pp. 16-17; interview
with James D. Moyle by Gene A. Sessions, 1 1 Aug. 1974, transcript of eighteen pages,
CLA, pp. 1-12; Gene A. Sessions, ed., “A View of James Henry Moyle: His Diaries and
Letters,” unpublished manuscript, 1974, CLA, pp. 89-129.

289

Chapter 10

OBSERVATIONS ON
THE INHERITANCE OF
CHORCH LEADERSHIP

Evolution of the Royal Family Concept

I have spent my life in devotion to Democracy and Mormonism,
but my nearness to their leaders has at times raised serious
questions in my mind about their worthiness. Charity must prevail
and I have tried to see each in the light of the good he has done.
Power has seemed to me to be a big problem. Joseph Smith, for
example, if he had lived long in the seclusion of the Rocky
Mountains where his word would have been the law and the end
of the matter, would have developed even greater dominance over
material affairs than did Brigham Young. It is instinctive in man
(and they were both mortal men) to love power. The more power
men exercise the more they think it belongs to them. In both cases
they and their followers believed that they were divinely called to
exercise great power. Though they placed a healthy general restric-
tion on the exercise of power and set forth grand and fundamental
principles of government, each of the two prophets wanted his
own children to enjoy privileges not enjoyed by other families. This
was notable in the provisions made for the enjoyment forever of
the family of the Prophet in the Mansion House in Nauvoo, and

291

Chapter 10

still more important the inheritance of the right of Presidecy of
the Church. The actual position of the Prophet on the latteis not
clear except in the general principles he enunciated, whiclwere
clearly against that proposition. But evidently something ws said
or done to give apparentjustification for the claim of the Reirgan-
ized Church that the Presidency of the Church was a divineright
vested in the posterity of Joseph’s descendants. Its outstanding
cornerstone is that only a son or grandson could be President and
Prophet of the Church and that church persists with an intelligent
following into the hundreds of thousands . 1

Brigham seemed to have been affected with the same ambition
as Joseph Smith, namely to have a son at the head of the Church.
By making a young man an apostle, as was the case with President
Young in his son Brigham, Jr., he hoped to have a son who would
become the senior apostle and thereby president. In fact, all of the
apostles selected, other than favored sons, were selected when they
were in middle or matured life, and therefore they were not so
likely to become president, unless they lived to great age. Brigham,
Jr., did become the President of the Twelve because he outlived
his senior apostles, although he did not live long enough to
become President. It has been the common fate of families of the
great in the Church and out to be made up of all kinds of people,
good, bad, and indifferent. Even Father Adam’s second son mur-
dered his own righteous brother because of jealousy. Jealousy, I
believe, did more than anything else to turn the three witnesses of
the Book of Mormon from their great prophet and the Church
itself. It is a corrupting, damning sin that should be avoided like
poison. Jealousy, like selfishness and particularly selfish ambition,
has led many of the best astray. One of the most impressive things
to me in my interview of two hours with David Whitmer was the
fact that he declared that Joseph Smith became a fallen prophet
of God through the influence over him of Sidney Rigdon, when
the Prophet had made him the second elder in the Church over

1 Memorandum dated Jan. 1945, Box 12, fd 1; James Henry Moyle Collection,
Library-Archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
Salt Lake City, hereinafter cited as CLA. All references hereinafter to box and folder
(fd) are for items from this collection. The RLDS church recently abandoned the in-
heritance principle with the appointment of a non-Smith family member as president.

292

Observations on the Inheritance of Church Leadership

those who had organized the Church and made it what it was when
Rigdon became a member."’

1 have no doubt that Joseph Smith made mistakes that were
offensive to each of the three witnesses and that contributed to
their alienation from him. But those mistakes were not comparable
with the mistakes each of the three witnesses made. I am inclined,
therefore, to think that Joseph Smith had performed his work, and
that had he gone to the vastnesses of the mountains where his
prestige would have been greater than that of Brigham’s, it might
have resulted in his making more serious mistakes. Power loves
and lives on power. It feeds on power, which it never voluntarily
surrenders. The more it is exercised the more it holds on to power
and soon leads to the conviction that it is a right, possibly a divine
right. It has been thus that false kingcraft, false priestcraft, have
been developed and become so supreme and arbitrary that they
could do no wrong, however outrageous the act: “The King can
do no wrong.” But he could not prevent men thinking that wrong
was done. I do not believe that a prophet of God, however much
inspired, can do no wrong. I do believe that the instinct of man
leads to wrong as well as to right, and that no prophet of God is
perfect, and that, on the contrary, he is imperfect, just as all human
beings are imperfect and do imperfect and objectionable things.
Constructive criticism is commendable and unconstructive criti-
cism is objectionable and I do hope I avoid the latter. It is
interesting to note how the criticisms ofjoseph Smith and Brigham
Young have been soon forgotten and their virtues are extolled and
grow with time, while small errors go at the same time into the
discard.'

Speaking of the selection of Church leaders, I know of none
where the President of the Church was not personally acquainted
with the selectee. I know of no reason why he should have made
a selection of one whom he did not know. The reasons are
abundant for knowing the facts so far as available, but I have
thought it would be wonderful if one were selected unknown to

2 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 4). See Gene A. Sessions,
ed., “A View of James Henry Moyle: His Diaries and Letters,” unpublished manu-
script, 1974, CLA, pp. 28-30.

3 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 5).

293

Chapter 10

the General Authorities of the Church (like the calling of King
David) who would become a great and outstanding leader. But this
has not yet happened. Moreover, so many of the apostles have
been the sons of the prominent leaders of the Church that I
wondered at times if anyone else could be called. My memories of
many of these selections are clear.

The Case of Brigham Young

My recollections of this phenomenon commence with the two
sons of Brigham Young. John W. was thirty-two years old when his
father, in the last months of his life, made him his second coun-
selor. That appointment was generally credited to the personal
ambition and folly of the father. The son, however, was one of the
most magnetic men I ever knew. He was indeed a natural leader
who had distinguished himself in both good and bad outside of
and largely away from the Church, chiefly in adventurous railroad
building in Utah where he started an eastern outlet for Salt Lake
City, but got only to Park City, a western outlet which only got to
Black Rock on the shore of the Great Salt Lake, and a northern
outlet from Ogden that ended in Cache Valley. He did some
grading on another road from the Big Cottonwood outlet to the
east and on the Provo River above Heber City, the remains of
which were visible when I visited the locality some years ago. His
largest adventure was in New Mexico and old Mexico in building
a western transcontinental road to the Pacific. He had large ideas.
The bad part of it all was his getting money he could not repay.
He was a really charming gentlemen, however, and always devoted
to the faith of his great father. He had a real ambition to make
Utah great and her people admired, though he did very little in
the Church, except during the few months he was the second man
in it and then he was a model of enthusiasm and devotion. I do
not remember of a notable accomplishment in his term, but I have
not investigated the subject. He was not long enough at it to do
much. He had a real ambition and doubtless would have done
much one way or the other if his ambition and purpose to be
president had been gratified. The most remarkable thing about
John W. Young was his resourcefulness. In New Mexico he had
repeatedly and grievously disappointed the large group of men
who worked for him and to accomplish his ends had made serious

294

Observations on the Inheritance of Church Leadership

misrepresentations. Finally, many of these men, being crude west-
ern frontiersmen, determined to settle up with John W. through
hanging him or otherwise putting him out of business. But when
they confronted him, he was the same placid, suave, and resource-
ful friend that he had always been, and they left feeling that he was
not bad enough to destroy and even renewed their belief that he
would some day pay them what he had so long owed them, which
he never did. 1

1 was attorney for John W. later in two important matters in
his life. His was the most brilliant mind of all the Youngs except
for that of his father. I liked and admired him, though I literally
hated some of the important things he did, and things which in
business were notoriously objectionable. His marvelous magnet-
ism relieved many of their money, which was never returned. Yet
as a rule, and so far as I know, he got the money for what he
thought were commendable purposes, especially railroad build-
ing. He had bigger ideas than purse to support them. I do not know
of anything he did as a Church leader that injured the Church, and
I presume he did some good, but 1 do not remember what. He
overflowed with big ideas of what should be done.

John W.’s good qualities appealed to his father, and his ambi-
tion to have a great son in his old age led him astray. For thus far
he had no son who had developed marked distinction. That was
the case though he had selected and made his namesake Brigham
an apostle when thirty-two years of age. Brigham, Jr., had never
done anything that particularly appealed to the people and never
did, though he went along as an apostle in an ordinary and
acceptable way. He was a pleasing character but not an outstanding
man. On the contrary, he was a man of ordinary accomplishments
though he was personally well-liked, and physically well-filled oul.
So it seems certain that the President had a real ambition for his
sons. He ordained more than one of them to the apostleship who
were never called to serve in the quorum. I remember only the
name of one thus ordained, and that was Heber, a very amiable,
nice gentleman who did not harm anyone and accomplished hut

4 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 4). See Dean C. Jessee, ed.,
Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974), pp. 91-

126.

295

Chapter 10

comparatively little in any sphere except to rear a fine family and
make a fine father, husband, and citizen, and a good bookkeeper.
I refer to the facts only to show how men with much power will
act when they let their personal desire control their action.
Brigham Young was and always will be great and grow in greatness
as time passes . 5

President Grant has often spoken of the crookedness and lying
of John W. Young, so I asked him why President Young had made
him a counselor in the First Presidency. He did not answer the
query, but said that he had made the motion in the Council of the
Twelve that John W. be removed from the Presidency upon the
death of President Young, though Daniel H. Wells, the other of
Brigham’s counselors, was retained . 6

In spite of this experience, each of the succeeding presidents
felt that they should have at least a family representative in the
apostleship, and appointed sons when unusually young so that
they would be in line to become (with reasonable certainty) the
president. Each had members of his family given offices that they
probably would not have been given. President Snow was an
exception, but not in thought so far as I can learn. President
Grant had no son, but all the rest exercised the prerogative. Early
deaths, excommunication, and results generally of the appoint-
ment of sons of presidents in their early life are at least signifi-
cant. But for those fatalities and excommunications during my
time, there would always have been a son of a president at the
head of the Church, provided the sons had lived a normal term
of years.'

Sons and Apostles

President Taylor made his son, John W., an apostle when he
was twenty-five. He had not distinguished himself above that of
the many superior young men in the Church. He served only a few
years and was excommunicated for disobedience. President Taylor
also made an older son (who had not been what might be called a

• r> Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 4). Seejessee, Letters, pp. 19-
20, 12742.

6 Memorandum dated Mar. 1943, Box 9, fd 7.

7 Memorandum dated Jan. 1945, Box 12, fd 1.

296

Observations on the Inheritance of Church Leadership

real businessman) manager of the Deseret News, apparently to give
him a much better job than he had ever held. I do not recall that
he had done anything in particular to indicate that he was fitted
for the position. Unquestionably, he never would have been se-
lected by any other President of the Church. I knew him well, and
he was a fine good man but not of the newspaper type.

Wilford Woodruff, another of the choicest of men, made his
son an apostle at twenty-four. He was just like the numerous
other good and worthy young Latter-day Saints, and again, had
done nothing to distinguish himself above those of his age. In
fact, like John W. Taylor and Brigham Young, Jr., neither before
or after his appointment did he do anything to indicate his
superiority, while there were many men in the Church who had
given evidence of great superiority. Young Woodruff served only
seven years, though he was ordinarily of good health. The Lord,
therefore, did not seem to give these young men any favor over
their fellows. If either had lived as an apostle as their fathers did
to a normal old age one of them would have been president of
the Church. But such was not on the Lord’s program. To me, it
was a case of man proposing and the Lord disposing, and an
evidence that the Lord is at the helm, piloting the ship to its
destined port.

If the whole truth were known, I am sure it would be appar-
ent that President Snow was afflicted with just the same desire
but could not see the way clear to accomplish it. It is known that
he had no son of the older families whom he could with a surety
of success propose, though he did have one who was made
president of a stake, and there was at least one other who was
much on a par with the favored sons named. His situation was
complicated some by the fact that in his old age he married a
rather fine, charming young lady whom I know had quite an
appeal to at least one of my intimate friends; she was a vivacious,
vigorous, and intelligent schoolmate of mine, and she had a
promising but very young son, Leroi, upon whom the father
doted, and I am sure would have selected if he had thought it
possible. He had the boy sit on the highest seats of the Tabernacle
at General Conferences as an aide. It was common talk that the
President wanted him made an apostle, and why it did not go
farther I do not know.’ 1 He had never done anything to indicate

Chapter 10

that he was apostolic timber. He is, however, a very fine Church
member. One thing is generally understood, namely that the
apostles were opposed to Leroi’s appointment or it is believed
the appointment would have been made . 8 9

I would like to see a more detailed history of the sons of the
presidents who were made apostles. George Q. Cannon was so
near a president that I include his son, Abraham. I am particularly
interested in what these young men did for the Church, and justifi-
cation for their appointments. I have concluded that it was the
same in every case (with one possible exception) the personal de-
sire of the father and not the inspiration of the Lord. I am giving
my impression, however, and not final conclusion. I remember
particularly the appointment of Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr. His fa-
ther had previously had his son, Hyrum, age twenty-nine, made an
apostle just seventeen days after he had become president. Hyrum
had nothing in particular to his credit except that he had, I pre-
sume, always been a good boy and a fine young man. If there were
any special accomplishments to his credit, I had not and have not
heard of them. And then to appoint another son in his youth, at
age thirty-three, who seemed less attractive personally seemed to
the casual observer passing strange. Joseph Fielding was always
very unsociable and extremely reserved. I well remember passing
him much later on the street when he was an apostle. I had never
formally met him until some time after, and he would nod his head
very slightly in recognition but indicating if anything more that he
was not interested even when I was generally recognized in a very
different way as a coming young lawyer of some prominence. But
he looked so serious and occupied with his own thought and unin-
terested in others that he presented the appearance of being ex-
tremely quiet and reserved.

Hyrum was, I conclude, more brilliant than Joseph Fielding.
I never heard or read much of what he said or did. He distin-
guished himself (if that is the way to put it) in denouncing in
extravagant terms those who appeared in bathing suits at Black
Rock and Salt Air Beach when that first became popular fifty
years ago. He was rashly in favor of preserving the modesty of

298

8 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 4).

!l Memorandum dated Jan. 1945, Box 12, fd 1.

Observations on the Inheritance of Church Leadership

the past which absolutely prohibited the exposure of a lady’s
limbs above the ankle. To permit the sight of the calf of a
woman’s leg was immodest if not immoral, and likewise her
breast below the neck. The newspapers reported his address on
the subject in the Tabernacle which was very sensational. He
was extreme on the subject. To illustrate the conditions of the
time, when 1 purchased my first bathing suit, I tried to get the
right kind and so far as I remember the only kind shown me.
It was knit and covered me from my toes to my neck. I was of
athletic build. There was no desire to obscure any part of my
figure except as modesty and propriety then demanded. I did
not wear that suit much and soon got another, but I did wear
it some. I soon found that it was alright to wear low neck and
expose the knee. To have appeared in tights with no curtain or
second cover over the hips and crotch would have been em-
phatically immodest in a man or woman for many years. The
slight covering which prevails now would have been shameful,
either in man or woman. Anyway, Hyrum M. Smith impressed
me as having the makings of a more attractive personality than
Joseph Fielding and probably would have developed into a fine
preacher. He spoke with freedom and with some distinction, so
I believe he would have made a creditable record. As it is, I
have but little remembrance of his speaking because I heard
him only a few times. I never heard of any enthusiasm for the
speaking of either of the two, though I now like to hear Joseph
Fielding. 1 "

I have never heard the story denied that when Hyrum was ap-
pointed, Joseph Fielding’s mother (a sister of Hyrum’s mother) was
very determined that her son should be equally honored. She was a
woman of positive and aggressive characteristics and an extremist
in some respects, especially as head of the women’s department in
the temple. She insisted rigidly that formalities to the smallest de-
tail be followed. Another story of like significance is of interest.
Hyrum was reported to have said to Presiding Bishop Nibley some-
thing to the effect that he had a premonition that two of them was
more than the Lord would approve so He would have to take one

10 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box I , fd 4 (Item 4).

299

Chapter 10

of them to even things up. That seemed a foreboding of what hap-
pened when Hyrum died so young. 1 1

The above may not be justified, though it is true; I am more
than pleased to be able to present the other side of my views,
which reflect credit rather than unfavorable criticism. The
brother who survived, Joseph Fielding, is doing a splendid work
in my opinion as historian of the Church. His writing on Church
doctrine, his maintenance of the pure and unadulterated prin-
ciples of the Gospel, his adherence to the orthodox ideals of
the Church and maintenance of them are courageous in the
face of the more liberal and modern thinking of so many of
our faith. He is not a popular speaker or writer but he hits
straight from the shoulder with pearls of truth and strict adher-
ence to principles as they have come to us from the past. I do
not mean that we would always think alike; we are very different,
and yet as to fundamentals of religion we do agree and I regard
him as a real upstanding pillar in the Church. His life has jus-
tified his appointment. He has devoted himself to his job with
singleness of purpose that is commendable.”

I was greatly prejudiced against what I thought and said was so
manifestly nepotism, but I am pleased to say that Hyrum gave the
Church a son, Joseph F., who was deemed worthy to be the Presid-
ing Patriarch of the Church, and Joseph Fielding has by his indus-
try and devotion to the Church and its welfare won my esteem, con-
fidence, and praise. By very many he is regarded as too orthodox,
rigid, and unyielding— straight-laced. I think, however, that he is a
courageous, straight thinker.” It was John Smith (who gave me my
blessing) whose family failed to produce a son qualified for the of-
fice of Patriarch, that is if continued in the favored direct line by
right of seniorship. So they very properly and regularly selected
this son of a junior line of inheritance, a very fine, highly-educated
university professor of speech, but not one of the most serious
kind, rather more witty than sober-sided. 1 believe he will make

11 Memorandum dated Feb., Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6. See also memorandum
dated Sept. 1944, Box 1, fd 1.

12 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 4).

13 Memorandum dated Sept. 1944, Box 1, fd 1.

300

Observations on the Inheritance of Church Leadership

good, as he does have a spiritual side. The Church, however,
seemed loath to leave the line of seniority."

George Q. Cannon was the most potent second man in the
Church during his long service as a counselor to the presidents of
the Church. He was a very choice intellect, a man who would have
made a great ambassador to any king’s court both in personality
and qualifications, a natural diplomat and leader. But he, too,
seemed to have the ambition of the great leaders under whom he
served, Taylor, Woodruff, Snow, and Smith. He had a son made
an apostle when a young man, Abraham H., who was in the same
class as the sons of his superiors.

It really seems to me that the Lord took these favored sons of
their fathers to Himself because He wanted some other for Presi-
dent, and that was the surest way to accomplish what He wanted
and still let men exercise their free agency. Abraham H. Cannon,
John W. Taylor, Owen Woodruff, and Hyrum M. Smith were all
men of apparently good bodies, normal minds, and in good health,
but the Lord took them . 15 Abraham H. Cannon was made an apos-
tle at thirty and died seven years later. He was a bright, promising,
and worthy young man, who at the time of his appointment also
had nothing so far as I know to his credit that would single him out
beyond numerous others, but the prominence of his father made
his selection easy and natural in view of the manifest policy of hon-
oring distinguished fathers by placing a son in line. 1 " It is singular
that Abraham H. Cannon died so early as did also Owen Woodruff,
particularly the latter; that John W. Taylor was excommunicated as
was also the case of Dr. Richard R. Lyman; and that of all the sons
of the great men in the Church of my time who were appointed
apostles, none of them has made an outstanding record. I think
Joseph Fielding and George Albert Smith are the most conspicu-
ous possible exceptions. Stephen L. Richards is the most polished
speaker now of them all. I discussed once with President Grant the
question of why so many sons of presidents and leaders were made

14 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 5). See Irene M. Bates and
E. Gary Smith, Lost Legacy: The Mormon Office of Presiding Patriarch (Urbana: University
of Illinois Press, 1996), pp. 173-200.

15 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 4).

16 Memorandum dated Feb., Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6.

301

Chapter 10

apostles. As I remember, his reply was that there was no reason why
they should be excluded or not appointed if they were acceptable

men.

Thus, four of the seven presidents of the Church have ap-
pointed their young sons to the apostleship. Brigham Young, Jr.,
died before he reached the final step, and the rest died or were re-
moved much sooner, with the exception of Joseph Fielding Smith.
His brother, Hyrum, died before he reached forty-six. John W. Tay-
lor was excommunicated, and Owen Woodruff died in the prime
of life at thirty-two. It is also pertinent that the three presidents
who did not appoint sons to the Twelve had no chance to do so, ex-
cept President Snow who was credited nevertheless with the desire
to do so. President Grant has no son and the Prophet Joseph did
not have one old enough. How can one resist concluding from this
that human nature asserts itself in the action of the best of men,
and that the Lord did not want any of these sons to be president?
And is it not a warning to future presidents not to appoint sons in
their early youth unless they are sure of their justification and that
they are not following sinful thinking and selfish reasoning?

President Grant was selected when he was twenty-five. While
his father had been a real light in the Church and a power therein,
Heber, at that time, was the son of a poor widow whom he says
earned her bread with her needle and thread. But the Lord had a
real work for him to do. Though so delicate in health that the life
insurance companies would not sell him life insurance, he has
fulfilled his great mission and still functions as president at eighty-
eight. He, too, was not a great preacher of doctrine, yet he bears
a greater and more impressive testimony of the divinity of Mor-
monism than any other living man. It is his most distinguishing
accomplishment. At the same time he is a great mixer, a friend and
associate of practical businessmen of the highest order, politicians,
in fact men of every class from the humblest to the greatest. He is
unique in his apparent fitness and unfitness, but withal success as

17 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 4). Of the sixty-four Mor-
mon apostles who had served up to the time of Moyle’s writing, thirty-eight were born
after the organization of the church in 1830. Of that number, fifteen, or nearly 40 per-
cent, were the sons of general authorities. Additionally, several others were grandsons
or related otherwise to general authorities.

Observations on the Inheritance of Church Leadership

a President of the Church. I have seen him in important Church
meetings with pencil and paper on his knee figuring I am sure on
finance when the Church service was on, and he would still not
miss the good things. He is a fine mixture of business, finance, and
spirituality . 18

President Grant more than any other has gone out of the old
line leadership for his selection of apostles during his long leader-
ship. Among his numerous selections to the Quorum of the Twelve
are only two sons of apostles, Richard R. Lyman and Joseph F. Mer-
rill. The former, the son of the president of the Quorum, Francis
M. Lyman, fell from grace most unfortunately and was removed
from the Church. He had been a university dean, notable engineer,
and a real fine, capable man whom I personally liked notwithstand-
ing his more than one weakness. I deeply deplored his failure . 19

Among the Brethren

I do not know very much in detail about Joseph Smith’s sons,
but I do know very much about all the rest, and liked them all. I
do not think I am unduly prejudiced against any one of them, had
no differences or conflict with any. The same can be said so far as
my knowledge goes of the grandsons. My knowledge of them has
diminished as time passes and they increase.

I have seen much of all of the Utah leaders of the Church
whose names stand out conspicuously for their accomplishments,
except that most brilliant writer, Parley P. Pratt. I also have no
personal recollection of Amasa Lyman or Ezra T. Benson. I only
remember seeing Charles C. Rich. He impressed me because he
was so tall and manly in appearance. His son, Ezra, a distinguished
surgeon, reminded me most of him. Elder Rich was a man of fine
presence and poise, and had good judgment.

Matthias F. Cowley, a nephew of President Taylor, was made
an apostle at the age of thirty-nine, and then followed the course

18 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 4).

19 Memorandum dated Sept. 1944, Box 1, fd 1. See Sessions, “View of James
Henry Moyle,” pp. 138-40. See also D. Michael Quinn, “The Mormon Hierarchy, 1832-
1932: An American Elite,” Ph D. diss., Yale University, 1976. Quinn revised his disser-
tation into a two-volume study published in 1995 and 1997 by Signature Books (Salt
Lake City): The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power and The Mormon Hierarchy: Exten-
sions of Power. Quinn’s work would have been of great interest to Moyle.

303

Chapter 10

of his cousin, John W. Taylor, to excommunication. Matt, as he
was generally and affectionately called, was a real Christian who
would have endured martyrdom for his faith as freely as any man
I ever knew. I always regarded him as the nearest model of a real
Latter-day Saint of all the boys I knew. We lived in adjoining wards
and I speak from personal knowledge. He was also a most pleasing
and impressive speaker, and must have made many converts to the
Church in his long and active missionary efforts. But he lost his
balance, religious equilibrium, and sound reasoning over the
burning issue of polygamy. I thought he had gone to seed on the
subject. There can be no doubt, however, that his urge for wives
for himself and others was not sensual but religious.

George F. Richards was made an apostle at forty-five in 1906.
He is a son of Franklin D. Richards by a plural wife, and was reared
in Centerville or Farmington in farm surroundings. Like his father
he is substantial, steady-going, deserving, slow of speech, deliber-
ate but spiritually minded. He has a rather monotonous tone of
voice which is not displeasing, not sparkling, and not especially at-
tractive. He does not awaken or arouse enthusiasm, but emits logi-
cal reasoning in a plain way. He was doubtlessly selected because
he was good and deserving, but with nothing very outstanding to
his credit. His half brothers, sons of the first wife, Franklin S. and
C. C., as he was called, were each men of much more than ordinary
calibre, both successful lawyers, though not college-bred. They
picked up the law at home as they went along in the ordinary voca-
tions of life. Both were devoted Church members, the first the lead-
ing Church attorney, and their mother was a dominating, clever,
and attractive woman living in the city of Ogden. Yet they were
passed by for a more obscure, farm-reared son who was less quali-
fied as a public speaker. Some thought, including the writer, that
the plural wife son was preferred because he was born and reared
in polygamy. He, too, was in harmony with the leadership of the
Church in all things including politics; Joseph F. Smith was so vio-
lently Republican that not a few thought it influenced Richards to
some extent while Franklin S. and C. C. were pronounced Demo-
crats and stood by their guns. My own thought on the subject was
that politics did cut some figure and that being a polygamous son
did also. The essential and most dominating requirement of an
apostle was always to be in harmony with his quorum and the First

304

Observations on the Inheritance of Church Leadership

Presidency. At all events, Franklin S. and C. C. (from the intellec-
tual standpoint) seemed better qualified and their standing in the
Church was unquestioned and such is still the opinion of the two
now as their lives close in comparative obscurity. Franklin S. distin-
guished himself in his old age as president of the high priests’ quo-
rum of the Ensign Stake. His children, however, all left the Church,
though his wife was a very prominent worker in the Church and a
fine Christian lady. 20

George A. Smith was a counselor to Brigham Young. He was
an immense, imposing man of fine intellect and influence, a real
leader who was honored with the appointment of his big, whole-
some son, John Henry, to the apostleship. John Henry was a
natural leader, a man of unusual force and good mind. He became
second counselor to Joseph F. Smith, a cousin of some degree, but
he died very soon after. His son, George Albert, was also made an
apostle. He distinguished himself as a Church worker and leader
in the YMM1A and won his spurs on his own merit. He was a most
likeable young man, with good ability and one of the best mixers
in the leadership of the Church, yet highly spiritual. He manifested
it more conspicuously than does President Grant, who does not
have so naturally the spiritual nature. George Albert, as he is
generally called, is a director of several important business corpo-
rations, but I always thought that was due to his popularity
generally, and a desire on the part of Church leaders to increase
the small income he received from the Church.

Prophets to Come

George Albert is an exceptionally loveable man. He has trav-
eled extensively, especially in connection with the Boy Scout
movement in which he has distinguished himself and has been
greatly honored by the national organization. The Church wisely
and early made Boy Scouting a real feature of the work of its
YMMIA and George Albert its leader. While he is not a great
preacher or unusual intellect, he is fine in both. He is sufficiently
intellectual and predominatingly spiritual, just the character the
Lord could easily use if needed for the accomplishment of some
great objective. I am impressed with that fact because of the

20 Memorandum dated Feb., Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6.

305

Chapter 10

possibility of his becoming President of the Church if he lived
longer than President Grant. I do not think George Albert was ever
strong like President Grant; he is very slender, and his health was
never that of a strong man. Yet he keeps going with ups and downs
of health. I cannot help but think there is a providence in his
continued life, and that there was the same in the shorter life of
the favored sons to whom I have referred and who seemed to have
a better prospect of life. I would say that President McKay, even
in his poor health, is being preserved to be President of the
Church. George F. Richards comes first, but he is in his eighties
and also not in the best of health. While he is a good and capable
man, he does not seem to be well-fitted for the presidency, for his
experience (while extensive) is not comparable with that of Smith
or McKay. Just as I did not ever think that Rudger Clawson or Reed
Smoot would become president, so do 1 not think Richards will,
though he is but two slender lives from it. But again, man proposes
and God disposes, and he might have a work for George F. to do.
He is a highly spiritual man and was reared in the largest and most
exemplary family of any man I know; the Richards family is most
numerous in Church prominence next only to the Smiths.' 1

It seems clear to me that I would not make such (as it seems to
me) grievous mistakes and that fitness, merit, and the inspiration
of the Lord alone would govern my choices. It is clear that I should
not say whether the inspiration of the Lord governed it or not, for
that is rather left to others whose responsibility to the Lord is at
stake. I can only speak and act for myself, but I can wonder whether
one such as myself would act selfishly in such an important matter
if the responsibility was mine. I believe I would not, but do not
know. It is certain that God only does know. I do know that in the
Biblical days in Israel, official leadership was inherited, but not al-
ways. The theory there seems to be clear, that such honors and
powers are legitimate subjects of inheritance or have been with the
approval of the Lord. Another thing has impressed me, namely
that recognized greatness is partially due to our remoteness from
it. The closer we get to great men the more they appear to be like
other men. In response to this fact and in their vanity, many seek to
make it difficult to get into their presence and have intercourse

21 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 4).

Observations on the Inheritance of Church Leadership

with them, so formalities and obstacles to reach them are created.
That is not a weakness in President Heber J. Grant. His simplicity
and frankness is charming to me. Up to very recent years you could
walk in on him unannounced. There are, however, practical objec-
tions to that as visitors become more numerous and time more im-
portant. I cannot resist, however, thinking how charming the lack
of pretense was in President Grant before J. Reuben Clark became
his counselor."

A Hunger for Power

What I would make clear if I could is that real great prophets
of God are after all mere human beings with all the weaknesses of
humans, and that their efforts to favor their own were merely
unauthorized, unapproved excrescences, that could not be made
realizations. And thus by death or otherwise, little came from the
unauthorized action. 2 ’

The hunger for power grew in the Roman Catholic Church un-
til it dominated and even humiliated kings and emperors, however
mighty. The empire was made the tool of the Church and in mod-
ern times the state its servant to the extent of a union of church and
state. As I understand it, that was true of the English Church and
would now be even in this enlightened age if the power existed in
America. The Church is “by divine right” placed above all human
institutions including the state, and the doctrine of infallibility in
its leadership persists in the Catholic Church and to a large extent
in that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Wherever
the Church has had its own way there has been either dominance
of church over the state and in modern times a union of church
and state wherever it was possible (and it was so in Utah). I hope I
will not be misunderstood in this connection. I do not object to the
course pursued politically in early Utah. It was infinitely more
Christian than the narrowness of that which the sectarian churches
would have had. The leadership of the Latter-day Saints is today
very different in many important respects from what it was in my
youth. Then we had in the territory of Utah a very complete union
of church and state. That, however, was an apparent necessity or at

22 Memorandum dated Sept. 1944, Box 1, fd 1.

23 Memorandum dated Feb., Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6.

307

Chapter 10

all events a wise policy, but it provided a fertile field for the growth
of power, which though exercised with much wisdom did develop
dictatorial power. Some of the best minds in the territory became
little czars in their limited fields; they were common men otherwise
of the finest character, even otherwise benevolent. So none of us
has the right to be the judge of our brother or president.

In my youth it was next to a high crime to say anything against
or disparaging of a Church leader. The rule was daily taught to fol-
low your religious file leader and do what he directed. On the
whole it worked splendidly, but there were many who did not fol-
low the admonition. It seems inherent in man to want to expose
the weakness or apparent weakness of others and not see the beam
in his own eye while magnifying the mote in a brother’s eye. I have
often found myself in the latter class, but as I get older I am grati-
fied to think there is less of it in me than there was formerly. I find
too much of good in all to justify uncharitable criticism. Most ad-
verse criticism is uncharitable and a real crime against virtue and
justice. It is a pity we cannot live longer and do better as we live
longer, and see the folly of narrowness, bitterness, and sin. I won-
der how free I am from what I dislike so much and condemn in oth-
ers. I feel sure I am getting away from it. As I put away the struggle
for a place in the sun and content myself more with what I have,
and seek more to make my last days more virtuous and useful for
others, I feel less of selfishness and more of love, justice, and ap-
proach to the divine. As a matter of fact, I wonder if it is wise to
point out as I have done herein the weaknesses in the men I honor,
respect, and follow so generally— men for whom I would be willing
to suffer and make great sacrifice. Myjustification is that the truth
should be known and that error should be exposed and corrected.
Covering up error and wrong-doing encourages it, while exposure
restrains and discourages it. I would have my readers know that in
the leadership of the Church I have found men I believed were in-
spired of God as far as the Lord could inspire them and still give to
them their free agency to commit error if they would, and that all
men irrespective of their places in the Church continue to be hu-
man and subject to all weakness of human nature, especially where
selfish interest is involved. It is easy to see things the way you want
them and so it is with the highest in office, and they too frequently
308 act accordingly and yield to the human desires of their heart. If the

Observations on the Inheritance of Church Leadership

Church leaders are viewed only from their official actions (which
become the actions of the Church approved by the Church in Gen-
eral Conference) all can follow them with safety, and do otherwise
with great unsafety.

Mormon Democrat: A Concluding Statement

Politics is the one and only subject of my difference with the
Church itself through its highest leadership. But God has given me
and all men the freedom of differing with the individual views and
positions taken by the leaders of the Church, however much they
may be in accord among themselves. It is not until action is taken
by the Church that its members are bound. This, of course, is not
in accord with the position expressed by so many that Latter-day
Saints are led by inspired men in all things. Many now take that
position, but I repeat that it is not the prerogative, according to
that leadership itself, to act as ecclesiastical leaders in politics, or
to undertake as such leaders to lead or direct what Church subor-
dinates shall do in politics. On the contrary, by their own solemn
and formal declarations it is not their duty to exercise ecclesiastical
control in politics, but rather for the Church members to follow
their own convictions therein. If that is kept in mind, differences
with Church leaders in politics are not violations of religious duty.
Fundamentally, the Latter-day Saints believe that the Church is the
Kingdom of God, and that we are a part of the Church and
Kingdom of God on earth. That puts Latter-day Saints in the same
position as Roman Catholics in saying that the Church is superior
to all earthly organizations. But it is my contention that in earthly
affairs it is our duty to give unto Caesar that which is due Caesar,
and that Latter-day Saints must honor and obey the laws of the
land and in this country its divine Constitution, which prohibits a
union of church and state, and demands obedience to laws enacted
thereunder even if it means discontinuance of the practice of a
fundamental law of the Church. This means complete obedience
to its laws even though in conflict with the laws of the Church. It
means that or leave the country, or live in prison and do nothing . 24

24 Memorandum dated Jan. 1945, Box 12, fd 1.

309

BIOGRAPHICAL

APPENDIX

The information in this biographical appendix, designed to aid the
reader in identifying those individuals mentioned in the memoirs,
was drawn primarily from the following sources: obituaries in the
Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News, and New York Times; Biographical
Record of Salt Lake City and Vicinity (Chicago: National Historical
Record Co., 1902); Ralph V. Chamberlin, The University of Utah: A
History of Its First Hundred Years, 1850-1950 (Salt Lake City: Univer-
sity of Utah Press, 1960); Dean C. Jessee, ed., Letters of Brigham
Young to His Sons (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974); Noble
War rum, ed., Utah Since Statehood, Historical and Biographical, 4
vols. (Salt Lake City: S. J. Clarke, 1919); materials in the Family
History Library of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
Salt Lake City, Utah; Orson F. Whitney, History of Utah, 4 vols. (Salt
Lake City: George Q. Cannon and Sons, 1892-1904); The National
Cyclopedia of American Biography (New York: James T. White and
Co., 1891); Allen Johnson, ed ., Dictionary of American Biography, 11
vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1964); Andrew Jenson,
Latter-day Saints Biographical Encyclopedia, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City:
Deseret News, 1936); Frank Esshom, Pioneers and Prominent Men of
Utah (Salt Lake City: Utah Pioneers Book Publishing Co., 1913);
Lawrence R. Flake, Mighty Men of Zion: General Authorities of the Last

311

Biographical Appendix

Dispensation (Salt Lake City: Karl D. Butler, 1974); and Who’s Who
in America (Chicago: A. N. Marquis Company, 1899-1973).

ADAMS, ORVAL W. (1884-1968), noted Utah banker, was elected presi-
dent of the American Bankers Association in 1937 where he gained
notoriety with his anti-New Deal statements. In addition to numerous
corporation directorships, he served as president and board chairman of
Zions First National Bank for eleven years.

ALLEN, CLARENCE E. (1852-1932), came to Utah from Ohio in 1881 to
teach in the Salt Lake Academy. After engaging in mining, he entered
politics in 1888, being elected to the legislature as a liberal. Following the
division of the Liberal Party on national party lines, Allen was among a
group that refused to go along. In 1892 he ran against the Democratic
and Republican candidates for Congress after which he finally left the
dissipating Liberal Party and became a Republican. He was elected to
Congress in 1895 and took his seat as the first Representative from the
State of Utah. He was a staunch silverite and was defeated for a full term
in 1896 by William H. King. He later moved to California where he died.

ANDERSON, JOHN M. (1912-69), a missionary from Logan, Utah, served
under Moyle in the Eastern States. He was a leader in the effort to use
radio as a missionary tool. He later moved to Wyoming where he became
one of that state’s prominent businessmen.

ANDERSON, W. F. (1823-1903), prominent Salt Lake City physician, was
a Virginian who joined the LDS church in 1856 in California. He sub-
sequently became president of the first Utah medical society and served
as division surgeon of the Nauvoo Legion. Moyle knew him as an early
owner of a cabin at Brighton.

ANGELL, TRUMAN O. (1810-87), was the chief architect on the Salt Lake
temple and other important Utah structures. Born in Rhode Island, he
was the brother of Mary Ann Angell Young, Brigham Young's wife.

ASHTON, BRIGHAM W. (1858-1912), young Moyle’s “best friend,” was
superintendent of the Granite School District at the time of his death. He
was first a stone-cutter and then taught in the LDS ward schools. In 1900
he became Salt Lake County superintendent of schools and head of the
Granite District when the county system divided in 1905.

ASHTON, CORA LINDSAY (1864-1960), whom Moyle baptized in North
Carolina, came to Utah in 1881 where she became the second wife of
Edward T. Ashton, later bishop of the Twenty-fourth Ward.

312

ASHTON, EDWARD (1821-1904), came from Wales to Utah in 1852. He

Biographical Appendix

settled in the Fifteenth Ward where his three oldest sons became young
Moyle’s favorite companions. After the coming of the railroad, Ashton
worked on the Ogden and Salt Lake line for twenty-five years.

ASHTON, EDWARD T. (1855-1923), was one of Moyle’s boyhood friends
in the Fifteenth Ward. He later served as bishop of the Twenty-fourth
Ward.

ASHTON, JEDEDIAH W. (1856-191 1), Moyle’s boyhood friend, went to
work for the Union Pacific Railroad at the age of fourteen and then
became head machinist for Silver Brothers in Salt Lake City. He was also
well-known for his talents and abilities in music.

BAKER, NEWTON D. (1871-1937), a Cleveland lawyer, was U.S. Secretary
of War during the Wilson administration. He was a potent force in Ohio
Democratic politics for many years, though his service in the War Depart-
ment was his only major sortie into public life. His management of the
American war effort during World War I gained for Baker the respect
and admiration of the nation.

BAMBERGER, CLARENCE (1886-1984), graduated as a mining engineer
from Cornell University in 1908 and did extensive postgraduate work in
Berlin and Paris. Returning to the western states, he operated numerous
mines in Utah, Colorado, and Nevada. He later chaired the Bamberger
Investments Corporation. Throughout his life, Bamberger devoted him-
self to civic affairs both on the state and national level, and in 1972 was
given the “Giant of Our City” award by the Salt Lake City Council.

BAMBERGER, SIMON (1847-1926), was born in Germany of Jewish
parents and immigrated to the United States in 1861. He eventually came
to Ogden where he opened a hotel and then built an interurban electric
rail line between Ogden and Salt Lake City. After moving to Salt Lake
City, he was elected to the legislature and eventually elected governor in
1916.

BARLOW, JAMES A., was a schoolmate of Moyle and later his missionary
companion in the Southern States. Barlow’s subsequent life history is
obscure.

BARNES, WILLIAM (1817-97), was an English stonemason who joined
the LDS church in Nauvoo in 1841 . After working on the Nauvoo temple,
he immigrated to Utah in 1854 where he went to work on Temple Block.
He was then called to work on the temple at St. George, Utah, prior to
leaving for a mission to Great Britain in 1879.

313

Biographical Appendix

314

BARNUM, CHARLES, was a childhood friend of Moyle. Details of his life
are obscure.

BARTON, JOSEPH (c. 1850-1932), was the Davis County attorney who
accompanied Moyle on the reform school tour of the East in 1888. He
practiced law in Kaysville for many years before moving to Oregon.

BASKIN, R. N. (1837-1918), graduated from the Harvard law school and
came to Utah in 1865. A perennial candidate for Congress on the Liberal
Ticket in the 1870s and 1880s, he was elected mayor of Salt Lake City in
1891. Baskin was known for his outspoken anti-Mormonism, and though
his administration of the city government was comparatively progressive,
he never sustained a substantial popularity.

BEAN, WILLARD W. (1868-1949), lived for twenty-four years in the
Joseph Smith home in Palmyra, New York, serving as guide and caretaker
at the site. He also wrote several missionary tracts for the church.

BECK, JONAS N. (1838-1907), was born in England. After joining the
church and coming to Utah, he settled in Cache County where he farmed
and worked as a painting contractor. He served in the Southern States
Mission with Moyle in 1879.

BENSON, EZRA T. (1811-69), was baptized in Illinois in 1840. He was
ordained an apostle in 1846 after several missions in the East and then
accompanied Brigham Young to Salt Lake Valley in 1847. After several
more missions, he was called to preside in Cache Valley where he served
until his death. He also held various territorial posts including several
terms in the legislature.

BERRY, WILLIAM S. (1838-84), was killed by a mob in Lewis County,
Tennessee, along with fellow missionary John H. Gibbs and two local
Mormons.

BISHOP, FRANCIS M. (1843-1933), was a Civil War veteran who follow-
ing his graduation from Illinois Wesleyan University served as chief
topographer on John W. Powell’s Colorado River expedition. He then
visited Salt Lake City intending a brief visit but was offered a position on
the faculty of Morgan’s Commercial College. As professor of natural
science, he then taught at the University of Deseret ( 1 873-77). Bishop later
engaged in mining and entered politics holding several judicial positions.

BLACK, JF.REMIAH S. (1810-83), of Pennsylvania was admitted to the bar
in his home state in 1830 and rose to the state supreme court. In 1857
Buchanan appointed him U.S. Attorney General and later Secretary of
State (1860). Black retired to Pennsylvania in 1861, where he became a

Biographical Appendix

respected elder statesman espousing many causes, including fair treat-
ment for the Mormons. Though an ardent Camphellite, Black became
one of the East’s most vocal spokesmen for Mormon rights.

BLAINE, JAMES G. (1830-93), was born in Pennsylvania and studied law
in Philadelphia. After a brief career in journalism which took him to
Maine, he entered politics as a Republican and was elected to Congress
in 1863 where he became Speaker in 1869. Blaine was elected to the
Senate in 1876 and served there until James Garfield appointed him
Secretary of State in 1881, but resigned from the cabinet upon the
president’s assassination. He was then nominated for the presidency in
1884 but lost to Grover Cleveland. Returning to the State Department
with the election of Benjamin Harrison in 1888, Blaine had his greatest
term of public service and exerted the most influence upon American life
attracting public attention to foreign policy as never before with his Pan
American Union and reciprocity ideas.

BLISS, CHARLES (1859-1933), accompanied Moyle to the Southern
States Mission in 1879. Following his mission, Bliss homesteaded in
eastern Nevada.

BOONE, EDWARD, married Moyle’s great-aunt from England, and the
young man visited them in St. Louis on his way to the Southern States
Mission in 1879.

BOURNE, HELEN KIMBALL WHITNEY (1862-1927), corresponded
with Moyle during his mission and years at law school. She was the
daughter of Horace K. Whitney and Helen Mar Kimball.

BOWEN, ALBERT E. (1875-1953), was Reuben Clark’s former law part-
ner. He became an apostle in 1937 and was known for his Republican
sympathies.

BOWMAN, JOHN F. (1880-1960), a son-in-law of Joseph F. Smith, dis-
placed Moyle as counsel in the Consolidated Wagon and Machine Com-
pany in 1914. Bowman had studied law at the University of Chicago. He
served as mayor of Salt Lake City from 1928 to 1932.

BOYLE, HENRY G. (1824-1908), joined the Mormon church in Virginia
in 1843. Following service on the Mormon Battalion, Boyle arrived in
Utah in 1847. He served seven missions to the Southern States and was
president of the mission from 1875-78.

BRAIN, CHARLES J. (1857-1933), was a well-known Utah contractor
whose works included the Lafayette School. He served with Moyle in the
Southern States Mission in the early 1880s.

315

Biographical Appendix

316

BROSSARD, EDGAR B. (1889-1980), of French-Canadian extraction,
served as president of the Swiss-German Mission (1912-14) and later of
the New England (1959) and French (1959-62) missions. From 1925 to
1959, Brossard was U.S. Tariff Commissioner, and was among the first
branch presidents in Washington and the first president of the Washing-
ton, D.C., Stake. Moyle rented an apartment from him during his second
stay in the Capitol.

BROWN, ARTHUR (1843-1906), born in Michigan, graduated from the
law school of the university of Ann Arbor in 1864. After practicing for
fifteen years in Michigan, he came to Utah where he was elected to the
Senate in 1896, serving a term that expired a year later. He was a delegate
to the Republican conventions in 1896 and 1900 and then failed in an
attempt to gain the senatorial nomination in 1901. Noted for his philan-
dering, Brown was shot to death in Washington, D.C., by a former
mistress.

BROWN, D. GLENN, was one of Moyle’s missionaries in the Eastern
States in the early 1930s. Brown took a leading role in the media innova-
tions of which Moyle was so proud.

BRYAN, WILLI AM JENNINGS (1860-1925), studied law in his home state
of Illinois and practiced there for a time before moving to Nebraska in
1887. He was elected to Congress in 1890 and then ran unsuccessfully for
the Senate in 1894. Subsequently becoming a newspaper editor, Bryan
joined the Chautauqua lecture circuit where he staunchly advocated the
free coinage of silver. He quickly rose to prominence on the strength of
his oratory and was nominated by the Democrats and the Populists for
the presidency in 1896. Defeated in the election, he ran again in 1900 and
1908 also unsuccessfully. Woodrow Wilson appointed him Secretary of
State in 1912, but Bryan resigned in 1915. The “Great Commoner” then
retired to his law practice gaining national attention as the defender of
the Bible in the Scopes (monkey) trial in Tennessee against Clarence
Darrow.

BURT, ANDREW (1828-83), was baptized in Scotland in 1848. After his
arrival in Salt Lake City in 1851, Burt became heavily involved in military
affairs which led to his election as chief of police in 1 862 and city marshal
in 1876. He was also the bishop of the Twenty-first Ward. He was killed
by a black itinerant who was immediately lynched in a shed behind City
Hall.

BURTON, HOSEA M. (1858-1920), was one of Moyle’s childhood ac-
quaintances in the Fifteenth Ward. The remainder of his life in Salt Lake
City is obscure.

Biographical Appendix

BURTON, JOHN H. (1857-87), a son of Robert T. Burton, studied
architecture in the East and had just established his firm in Salt Lake City
when he was murdered at the age of thirty by a “whiskey man” who
apparently mistook him for a detective.

BURTON, LAFAYETTE G. (1860-1934), a prominent Utah mining and
railroad engineer, was construction engineer of the Utah Eastern Rail-
road. He also built the Salt Lake City street rail line to Fort Douglas.

BURTON, ROBERT T. (1821-1907), a Canadian who came to Utah in
1848, was active in the leadership of the territorial militia in Indian
campaigns and during the Utah War. His numerous public offices in-
cluded constable, deputy marshal, sheriff, assessor, collector of internal
revenue, city councilman, territorial legislator, and regent of the Univer-
sity of Deseret. After a term as bishop of the Fifteenth Ward, he became
(1884) first counselor to Presiding Bishop William B. Preston.

BUSSEL, JAMES (1805-84), known affectionately as “Daddy” in the Fif-
teenth Ward, was baptized in England and came to Utah in 1853. He was
an herbalist who practiced folk medicine among his neighbors.

BUTLER, BENJAMIN F. (1818-93), studied law and was admitted to the
Massachusetts bar in 1840. He was elected as a Democrat to the legislature
in 1853 where he served until his election as general of militia at the
outbreak of the Civil War. Butler’s career was then meteoric. In 1862 he
took New Orleans and became its military governor, but his flamboyant
and controversial administration shortly forced his removal. Following
the war, he was elected to Congress as a Republican and lived lavishly in
Washington until his defeat for reelecdon in 1875. He returned to
Congress in 1878 as a Greenbacker, and by 1880 was back in the Demo-
cratic Party. He tried unsuccessfully to gain the presidential nomination
in 1884 then bolted the party and ran as the candidate of the Greenback
Party. He garnered only a few thousand votes and died a decade later in
obscurity.

BYWATER, GEORGE (1828-89), came to Utah in 1854 a convert to
Mormonism from Wales. He lived in the Fifteenth Ward until 1868 when
he moved to Utah County. James Moyle later purchased Bywater’s home
for his second family.

BYWATER, JOSEPH G. (1857-1931), a playmate of young Moyle in the
Fifteenth Ward, went to work for the Utah Central Railroad at the age of
fourteen and later became an engineer on the Denver and Rio Grande.
He also served two terms in the legislature and was active in union affairs,
the Cambrian Society, and the Masonic Order.

317

Biographical Appendix

318

CAHOON, ANDREW (1824-1900), born in Ohio, came to Utah in an early
migration. After marrying three wives, he left the LDS church and became
known as the “apostate bishop of Murray.” He had nineteen children.

CAINE, ANNIE HOOPER (1865-1946), daughter of William H. Hooper,
introduced Moyle to Alice Dinwoodey. Annie later married Joseph E.
Caine who was for many years secretary of the Salt Lake City chamber of
commerce.

CAINE, JOHN T. (1829-191 1), came from the Isle of Man and joined the
LDS church in New York in 1847. In Utah he taught school and became
a member of the Deseret Dramatic Association. After a mission to Hawaii,
he joined Brigham Young’s staff as a clerk. He also served terms as city
recorder, regent of the University of Deseret, and Salt Lake Stake high
councilman. His most important role in Utah history came as he served
in five consecutive sessions of Congress following his election as Utah’s
delegate in 1883.

CALLIS, CHARLES A. (1865-1947), was baptized as a youngster in
England and came to Utah in 1875. After becoming a lawyer, he served
several missions for the LDS church and in 1906 became president of the
Southern States Mission. He served in that capacity for twenty-eight years
until his call to the apostleship in 1933.

CANNELL, MARGARET ANNA (see Margaret Anna Canned Moyle)

CANNON, ABRAHAM H. (1859-96), a son of George Q. Cannon, was
ordained an apostle in 1889 at the age of thirty following seven years on
the First Council of Seventy. His early death was evidence to Moyle that
his young calling to the Quorum of the Twelve had been the result of
human folly.

CANNON, ANGUS M. (1834-1915), was president of the Salt Lake Stake
from 1876 to 1904. A brother to George Q. Cannon, he came to Utah as
a boy in 1849. His work apart from the LDS church consisted of farming,
stockraising, and some business enterprises. As president of the Salt Lake
Stake, which encompassed Salt Lake, Davis, Tooele, and three other
counties, Cannon was one of the most powerful men in Utah during
pre-statehood years serving also as chairman of the Peoples Party.

CANNON, FRANK J. (1859-1933), a son of George Q. Cannon, left the
LDS church and became a bitter apostate. A journalist, Cannon worked
on several newspapers in Utah and became a Republican while reporting
for the San Francisco Chronicle. He settled in Ogden, editing the Standard,
then ran for Congress in 1892, was defeated, ran again in 1894, and was
elected. In January 1896 he was elected U.S. Senator as a Republican but

Biographical Appendix

soon switched parties in the silver controversy. He failed in his effort for
reelection in 1899. Serving for a time as Democratic state chair, Cannon
later returned to journalism writing anti-Mormon polemics aimed primar-
ily at the interference of the church leadership in politics.

CANNON, GEORGE M. (1861-1937), a son of Angus M. Cannon, spent
his boyhood in the Fifteenth Ward. He later became a teacher and then
entered politics with his election as Salt Lake County recorder. In 1895
he became chair of the Republican state committee and aspired in 1901
to the U.S. Senate.

CANNON, GEORGE Q. (1827-1901), joined the LDS church in England
in 1840 and came to America in 1842. He became a journalist and edited
at various times the Deseret News, Juvenile Instructor, Millennial Star, and
Western Standard. He become an apostle in 1859, presided over the
European Mission for a time, and then was appointed private secretary
to Brigham Young. In the 1870s Cannon sat on the Democratic side in
Congress as Utah’s delegate. He became a member of the First Presidency
after the death of Brigham Young and served as such until his death.
Following statehood, he aspired to the U.S. Senate as a Republican against
Moses Thatcher. His role as intellectual and political head of the church
was evident during these last years.

CANNON, JOHN M. (1865-1917), a son of Angus M. Cannon, received
his law degree from the University of Michigan in 1890. His father asked
Moyle to take the young lawyer into his firm, ironic in the face of Angus’s
earlier denunciation of Moyle for seeking a law degree.

CANNON, JOSEPH J. (1877-1945), a son of George Q. Cannon, served
as editor of the LDS Millennial Star for a short time after a mission to
Sweden at the turn of the century. He then graduated from the University
of Utah, engaged in banking and the canning business, and entered
politics, being elected to the legislature in 1909 where he was active in the
fight for prohibition in the state. Following a term as managing editor of
the Deseret News, Cannon became president of the British Mission (1934-
37) and then president of the Temple Square Mission of the church
(1937-41).

CARLTON, AMBROSE B., from Indiana, was a member of the Utah
Commission during the first Cleveland administration. With John A.
McClernand he submitted to the Union a report supporting Utah’s
admission and praising the people of the territory and their institutions.
Additional details of his life are comparatively obscure.

CARVER, THOMAS NIXON (1865-1954), received his Ph.D. from Cor-

319

Biographical Appendix

nell in 1894. He began his career at Oberlin College as professor of
economics but moved to Harvard in 1900 as professor of political econ-
omy. Between 1904 and 1948, Carver published twenty books on political
economy and human relations. He also studied the Mormon socio-eco-
nomic system and extolled Brigham Young’s work in pioneer Utah.

CHIPMAN, JAMES (1839-1922), came to Utah with the pioneers in
September 1847. He grew up in Utah County and became involved in
merchandising and banking. He was Utah’s first state treasurer and was
involved in numerous capital investment ventures.

CLARK, JOHN (1835-1908), was born in England where his fatherjoined
the Mormon church. He arrived in Salt Lake City in 1851 and settled in
the Fifteenth Ward. Following over twenty years on the Salt Lake City
Council, Clark was elected mayor in 1897. He also served three terms in
the legislature. Very successful in business, he was for many years assistant
superintendent and treasurer of ZCMI.

CLARK, JOSHUA REUBEN, JR. (1871-1961), counselor to LDS church
presidents Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, and David O. McKay,
was a noted international lawyer and Republican State Department func-
tionary. Following his failure to get the Republican senatorial nomination
in 1928, Clark became undersecretary of state and then ambassador to
Mexico under Herbert Hoover. His conservative isolationism was classic,
and his hatred for the New Deal spilled over into his church service
causing a resurgence in the 1930s of attempts on the part of the Mormon
leadership to control Utah politics. Despite Moyle’s great personal respect
for Clark, the Democrat freely blamed him for the politicalism of the
Grant administration.

CLAWSON, HIRAM B. (1826-1912), joined the church and moved to
Nauvoo in 1841. In Utah he became Brigham Young’s private secretary
and managed the president’s private business affairs. After various busi-
ness ventures including management of the Salt Lake Theater, Clawson
took over management of ZCMI. He also served for many years as bishop
of the Twelfth Ward.

CLAWSON, RUDGER (1857-1943), witnessed the murder of his mission-
ary companion, Joseph Standing, in Georgia in 1879. He also served three
years in prison during the anti-polygamy crusade in the 1880s. Following
service as president of the Box Elder Stake, he became an apostle in 1898.
One of his wives, Alice Moyle’s half-sister, divorced him causing an
estrangement between him and the Moyles.

CLEVELAND, GROVER (1837-1908), born in New Jersey, grew up in

320

Biographical Appendix

New York where he became a devoted Democrat. He studied law and was
admitted to the bar in 1859. In 1881 he was elected mayor of Buffalo and
in 1882 governor of the state. His image of stubborn honesty quickly made
him a leading contender for the White House. Though spurning Tam-
many Hall, he was nominated for the U.S. presidency in Chicago in 1884
on the second ballot and was subsequently elected. He lost in a bid for
reelection in 1888 but succeeded in 1892. Cleveland gained Moyle’s praise
as the president who signed Utah’s Enabling Act in 1895.

CLIFT, FRANCIS D. (c. 1830-1914), known as “Dan,” was a pioneer real
estate man in Salt Lake City. At one time Clift owned large sections of the
city particularly on West Temple where he built the Clift House Hotel.

COLTON, DON B. (1876-1952), succeeded Moyle as president of the
Eastern States Mission in 1833 following an unsuccessful bid for Congress
as a Republican in 1932. Prior to this, he had served as president of the
Uintah Stake of the church.

COOLIDGE, CALVIN (1872-1933), born in Vermont, rose through Mas-
sachusetts Republican politics to the governorship in 1918. His forceful
handling in that office of the portentous Boston police strike brought him
the national attention that caused Warren Harding to choose him as a
running mate in 1920. With the death of Harding in 1923, Coolidge
became president and was subsequently elected to a full term in 1924.
Following a lackluster administration, Coolidge retired in 1929 to private
life in Boston.

COSTIGAN, GEORGE P. (1870-1934), graduated from Harvard Univer-
sity law school after which he practiced law in partnership with Moyle in
Salt Lake City. He was subsequently appointed professor of law at North-
western University, eventually becoming dean of the college of law at the
University of Nebraska and then at the University of California.

COWDERY, OLIVER (1806-50), one of the three witnesses to the Book
of Mormon plates, was “Second Elder” in the LDS church and associate
president with Joseph Smith. After several and prolonged disagreements
with Smith, Cowdery was excommunicated in 1838 but rejoined the
church ten years later. Just prior to his death in 1850, he visited David
Whitmer in Missouri and restated his testimony of the Book of Mormon.
Whitmer recounted this event in his interview with Moyle in 1885.

COWLEY, MATTHEW (1897-1953), a son of Matthias Cowley, and hav-
ing been an aide to Reed Smoot in Washington, became an apostle in
1945. He served several missions in the Pacific and was known for his

Biographical Appendix

322

work among the Maoris of New Zealand. Cowley became a close friend
to the Moyles during their last years in Utah.

COWLEY, MATTHIAS F. (1858-1950), became an apostle in 1897 but
resigned in 1905 because of the church abandonment of polygamy and
was disfellowshipped. Restored to full membership in 1936, Cowley
served a final mission for the church just prior to his death.

COX, JAMES M. (1870-1957), was the first man ever elected governor of
Ohio for three terms. Cox, publisher of a group of newspapers in Ohio,
Georgia, and Florida, ran against Warren G. Harding for the U.S. presi-
dency in 1920. His running mate was Franklin D. Roosevelt.

CREER, FRANK B. (1907-93), married Moyle’s youngest daughter, Sara
Virginia, in 1930. Creer, a graduate of Harvard Business School, was an
executive and director of the Utah-Idaho School Supply Company in Salt
Lake City in addition to various other business, civic, and religious
activities.

CREER, SARA VIRGINIA MOYLE (1907-93), was Moyle’s last-born child.
She was educated in Salt Lake City and Washington, D.C., and graduated
from the University of Utah in 1930 after which she married Frank B.
Creer. She served as president of the Salt Lake Central Stake Relief
Society.

CUMMINGS, HOMER S. (1870-1956), Franklin Roosevelt's first Attorney
General, was responsible for the plan to enlarge the Supreme Court then
regularly blocking New Deal legislation. Cummings was also strong on
penal reform and was a vigorous supporter of J. Edgar Hoover and the
FBI. Cummings had been a successful Connecticut attorney.

CUMMINGS, JAMES W. (1819-83), in whose home Moyle was ordained
a Seventy, was baptized in Nauvoo, Illinois, in 1841 and, after several
missions for the LDS church, arrived in Utah in 1851. He served in the
legislature, on the Salt Lake City Council, and as county treasurer. He was
known as one of the most active “home missionaries” in the valley.

CUTLER, JOHN C. (1846-1928), defeated Moyle by a comfortable margin
in the 1904 gubernatorial race in Utah. Cutler was an employee of Provo
Woolen Mills and later was associated with several banks and insurance
companies in Salt Lake City. His only elective positions prior to the
governorship were terms as county clerk and clerk of the probate court.

DANIELS, JOSEPHUS ( 1863-1948), U.S. Secretary of the Navy in World
War I, ambassador to Mexico during the New Deal, and editor and
publisher of a Raleigh, North Carolina, newspaper, was noted for his

Biographical Appendix

puritanical “Sunday School” administration of the navy and for his no-
nonsense yet friendly dealings with Mexico during the oil expropriation
crises of the late 1930s. He succeeded J. Reuben Clark in the Mexico City
post.

DARKE, SIDNEY W. (d. 1907), came to Utah from England in 1862. He
was one of the first lawyers in Salt Lake City and at one time taught
mathematics at the University of Deseret.

DAVIS, JOHN W. (1873-1955), the unsuccessful Democratic candidate
against President Coolidge in 1924, was a native of West Virginia but spent
the bulk of his career as a constitutional lawyer in New York City. He was
elected to Congress in 1910 and was then appointed U.S. Solicitor General
in 1913. In 1918 he became ambassador to Great Britain serving there
until 1921. His nomination in 1924 came after 102 ballots and a prolonged
fight between William G. McAdoo and Alfred E. Smith. Later a bitter
opponent of Franklin Roosevelt, Davis defected to the Republican Party.

DEE, THOMAS D. (1844-1905), was born in Wales where his family
became Mormons in 1856. They came to Utah in 1860 and settled in
Ogden. Dee became a contractor and then engaged in the sugar business.
By the turn of the century, he was director and executive of numerous
business enterprises in northern Utah including the building and opera-
tion of three railroads. He served in various political offices in Ogden and
also in the legislature. The Mormon hospital in Ogden was named after
him in response to his generous endowments and other civic activities.

DF.NBY, EDWIN (1870-1929), U.S. Secretary of the Navy under Harding,
approved the transfer of naval oil reserve administration to Interior
Secretary Albert B. Fall. Fall then leased Wyoming and California reserves
to private operators precipitating the so-called Teapot Dome Scandal.
Denby was born in Indiana but entered politics in Michigan where he
practiced law. He was also an executive in several Detroit motor
companies.

DERN, GEORGE H. (1872-1936), was born and educated in Nebraska
after which he came to Utah as a miner. He rose quickly to executive
positions, and from 1915 to 1919 was general manager of the Tintic
Milling Company. In 1914 he was elected to the state senate as a Democrat
and served there until his election as governor in 1928. Franklin Roosevelt
appointed him Secretary of War in 1933. He died in office.

DINWOODEY, ALICE EVELYN (see Alice Evelyn Dinwoodey Moyle)

DINWOODEY, HENRY (1825-1905), Moyle’s father-in-law, was an Eng-
lish carpenter who became a Mormon in 1845 and sailed for America in

323

Biographical Appendix

324

1849. In 1850 he opened a small dry goods store in St. Louis and remained
there until 1855 when he moved to Utah. Following the Utah War, he built
a shop where he made furniture from native lumber. He continued to
expand and by 1890 was one of the wealthiest businessmen in Utah,
serving on numerous boards of directors and in various civic positions.
He traveled widely, served a term in prison for polygamy, and contributed
liberally to the church and charity.

DOHENY, EDWARD L. (1856-1935), discovered one of the first oil fields
in California and then expanded into Mexico where he built one of the
greatest concentrated oil holdings of private capital in the world. He was
indicted in 1924 for his part in the naval reserve lease scandal (Teapot
Dome) but was acquitted.

DOVER, JOSEPH R. (1823-1904), joined the Mormons in England in
1847. He went to Australia in 1850 and finally to Utah in 1871 where he
became chief assistant to Temple Block foreman James Moyle. He later
worked on various stonecutting projects for Brigham Young and John
Taylor. Assisting Willard Young, he also spent seven years building the
locks at the Cascades in Oregon.

DUNBAR, DAVID C. (1858-1938), graduated from the University of
Deseret in 1878 and went to work on the Salt Lake Herald. After a period
out of Utah, he returned to Salt Lake City where he engaged in business
and became active in the Democratic Party. In 1919 Woodrow Wilson
appointed Dunbar collector of internal revenue. He later returned to
California but kept up a close friendship with Moyle until his death.

DUNBAR, ELIZABETH (LIBBY) HOOPER, a youthful friend of Moyle,
was a daughter of William H. Hooper. She subsequently married Moyle’s
close friend, David C. Dunbar.

DUNCANSON, MARY (1830-1911), joined the I.DS church in Scotland
and came to Utah in 1866 with her husband, David. They settled in the
Fifteenth Ward where she became the neighborhood midwife delivering
nearly all of Moyle’s twenty-two brothers and sisters.

ECCLES, HENRY, of the Fifteenth Ward was foreman of stonecutters on
Temple Block prior to James Moyle.

ECCLES, MARRINER S. (1890-1977), son of prominent Ogden business-
man David Eccles, took over a portion of his father’s business interests in
1913 and by the Great Depression had built a multimillion-dollar enter-
prise. Eccles was steering his diversified banking and industrial interests
through the Depression with minimal losses when he thereby attracted
the attention of national political leaders. He was consequently appointed

Biographical Appendix

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in 1934 and Federal Reserve Board
Chairman in 1935. He remained the dominant figure in the Federal
Reserve System until 1951 when he returned to private life and his
ongoing business and civic interests.

ELDREDGE, ALLIE (see Allie Eldredge Smoot)

EVANS, DAVID (1852-1923), born in Lehi, Utah, attended the law school
at the University of Michigan with Moyle in the 1880s. He was later law
partner to George Sutherland and others in Utah County where he
practiced law until his death.

EVANS, JOHN HENRY (1872-1947), graduated from the University of
Utah in 1906 and did graduate work at the University of California after
which he became head of the English department at LDS University. A
subsequent employee of the church, Evans wrote several books relating
to Mormons and Mormonism including biographies of Joseph Smith,
Charles C. Rich, and Moyle (unfinished). His Story of Utah was for many
years the Utah history text book used in the public schools.

FARLEY, JAMES A. (1888-1976), successful New York businessman and
president of General Builders’ Supply Corporation. After service on
various state commissions, Farley was appointed Postmaster General by
Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 and served until 1940. As such, Farley was
dispenser of patronage in the New Deal. Following his return to private
life, he became head of the Coca Cola Export Company.

FARR, AARON F. (1818-1907), was baptized in 1832 and reached man-
hood during the Missouri and Illinois persecutions. Originally part of
Brigham Young’s advance party in 1847, Farr was assigned to return east
to meet Daniel Spencer’s company. After several missions, Farr moved to
Ogden where he became a judge and held other public offices. He was
father-in-law of Moses Thatcher and clashed with Moyle during the
election of 1899 in the legislature when he charged that Moyle had
conspired for the seal without openly campaigning for it.

FAUST, H. J. (c. 1830-1904), better known as “Doc,” built and operated
a livery stable on Second South. The U.S. District Court was held on its
second floor for several years. Faust, an old mule skinner and mail station
operator, later retired to California where he died.

FERGUSON, FERGUS (1860-1927), graduated from the University of
Michigan Law School where he associated with Moyle. Upon returning to
Utah, Ferguson practiced law for a time and then contracted a chronic
illness which severely curtailed his activities.

.325

Biographical Appendix

326

FERGUSON, JEANNETTE SHARP (1861-1937), was a daughter ofjohn
Sharp, the “railroad bishop.” She married Fergus Ferguson who attended
the University of Michigan with Moyle. Because of the illness of her
husband, she retired to California.

FOLSOM, HARRIET AMELIA (see Harriet Amelia Folsom Young)

FOLSOM, WILLIAM (1815-1901), one of James Moyle’s business associ-
ates and a prominent architect in early Salt Lake City, was also the father
of Amelia Young, plural wife of Brigham Young. He was baptized in 1840
and established himself in Nauvoo as an architect and builder. After
working on the temple there and after coming to Utah, he drew up the
plans for the Salt Lake Tabernacle. Folsom worked on each temple and
supervised construction at Manti. He designed additionally the old Salt
Lake Theater and several other important Utah structures.

FULLMER, EUGENE B. (1833-99), survived the Haun’s Mill Massacre in
Missouri. After his arrival in Utah, Fullmer went to work on Temple Block
(1853) and worked as a stonecutter on the temple until it was finished in
1893.

GATES, THOMAS S. (1873-1948), practiced law for a time in Pennsylva-
nia and then became an insurance executive. In 1921 he became a trustee
of the University of Pennsylvania and in 1930 its president. Gates was a
Republican but ardently supported Woodrow Wilson and the League of
Nations. He also served in various advisory government positions during
World War II.

GIBBS, GEORGE F. (1846-1924), came to Utah from Wales in 1868. He
worked as a secretary in the office of the First Presidency for nearly sixty
years.

GILLESPIE, PETER (1822-96), was intermittently James Moyle’s partner
in the contracting business. He joined the LDS church in Scotland in 1842
and arrived in Utah in 1853. In 1857 Brigham Young called him to work
on the Salt Lake temple. It was during lulls in this service that he and the
elder Moyle cut stone for the Union Pacific Railroad and built several
buildings in Salt Lake City.

GLASS, CARTER (1858-1946), known as father of the Federal Reserve
System and dean of the Senate, served continually in the Congress from
1902 until his death with the exception of a few months as Woodrow
Wilson’s Secretary of the Treasury. From Virginia, he served as chair of
the House Banking Committee and in the Senate as chair of the Appro-
priations Committee.

Biographical Appendix

GORGAS, WILLIAM C. (1854-1920), born in Alabama, received his M.D.
at Bellevue Medical College in New York in 1879 whereupon he was
appointed to the Army Medical Corps. He subsequently gained national
repute as a sanitarian during the yellow fever campaigns in Cuba and
Panama around the turn of the century. With the outbreak of World War
I, Gorgas became head of the Army Medical Service where he worked
closely with Moyle who had charge of the Public Health Service. Gorgas
was famous as “The man who made the Panama Canal possible” through
his tireless work in combatting tropical diseases.

GRANT, GEORGE D. (1808-76), brother of Jedediah M. Grant, was one
of the original Utah pioneers and an early settler in the Bountiful area of
Davis County.

GRANT, HEBERJ. (1856-1945), was seventh president of the LDS church.
An early success in business, he became president of the Tooele Stake at
the age of twenty-four and an apostle in 1882. As church president, Grant
emphasized financial growth and the Word of Wisdom. Though he called
himself a Democrat, he rankled Moyle by openly attacking Franklin D.
Roosevelt and the New Deal.

GRANT, JEDEDIAH M. (1816-56), apostle and father of HeberJ. Grant,
never served in the Quorum of the Twelve though he was counselor for
two years to Brigham Young. After service in Zion’s Camp and several
lengthy missions, two of them to North Carolina and Virginia, he came
to Utah at the head of a company in 1847. At the time of his father’s death,
Heber was only nine days old.

GRIGGS, THOMAS C. (1845-1903), educator and musician, joined the
LDS church in England in 1856 and emigrated the same year but did not
come to Utah until 1861. He studied music under B. B. Messenger and
George Careless and subsequently became a member of the Deseret
Sunday School Union General Board and superintendent of Sunday
schools in the Salt Lake Stake.

HAGUE, FRANK (1874-1956), the perennial “boss” of New Jersey Demo-
cratic politics and thirty-year mayor of Jersey City, was called the last of
the old-time party bosses. Though at one time Hague controlled com-
pletely the New Jersey party and had built a $2-million fortune from his
activities, his power dwindled rapidly during his last years. His motto was
simply “I am the Law.”

HAINES, HARRY, taught school in the Fifteenth Ward, and, according
to Moyle, moved to Murray where he became a well-known saloon keeper.
Additional details of Haines’s life are obscure.

Biographical Appendix

HAMPTON, BENJAMIN (1837-1917), came to Utah with the Motion
immigration of 1853. After a mission, he engaged in the niinimand
smelting business. He then ran a mail station on the Bear River uril in
association with William Godbe he became wealthy mining silver andjold
in Utah and Nevada.

HARDING, WARREN G. (1865-1923), was an Ohio journalist and lusi-
nessman when he entered Republican politics in 1898 with his electicn to
the state legislature. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1914 as a ool
of the state party machine. As a Senator, Harding maintained a cultivited
reputation as a safe conservative and charmed his way into the Republcan
presidential nomination in 1920. Personally attractive and taking ad an-
tage of public reaction to Wilsonian progressivism, Harding was eleited
handily calling for a “return to normalcy.” His administration was ex-
tremely pro-business and dull until the exposure of the Teapot Dime
Scandal, most of which came forth after his merciful death in office.

HARDING, WILLIAM P.G. (1864-1930), a prominent Alabama banker,
became a member of the Federal Reserve Board in 1914 and its governor
in 1916. He served until 1922 and chalked up an admirable record
particularly as an efficient organizer. In 1923 he became governor of the
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and died in that office.

HARKER, BENJAMIN (1852-84), served in the Southern States Mission
with Moyle. He fell ill and returned to Utah early, but he never recovered.

HARRIS, FISHER S. (1865-1909), born in Virginia, came to Utah while
working for the railroad and afterwards became secretary of the Commer-
cial Club. He was an avid promoter of Utah tourism and was known
throughout the West for his oratorical abilities.

HARRIS, MARTIN (1783-1875), was a prosperous New York farmer in
1827 when he met Joseph Smith. He served for a time as scribe for Smith
and underwrote publication of the Book of Mormon. In the summer of
1829, he became one of the “three witnesses” to the Book of Mormon
when he saw the golden plates in the hands of an angel. He remained high
in the councils of the church until 1838 when Smith and his followers
removed completely from Ohio to Missouri. Harris stayed behind but
finallyjoined the Saints in Utah in 1870 where he died at Clarkston, Cache
County. Moyle heard him preach in the Tabernacle shortly after his arrival
in Salt Lake City.

328

HASLAM,JOHN R. (1828-99), was baptized in England and came to Utah
in 1853 where he worked for Brigham Young’s family until the colonizer’s

Biographical Appendix

death in 1877. During this period, he also served as clerk of the general
tithing office.

HAYES, RUTHERFORD B. (1882-93), was admitted to the Ohio bar in
1845 after attending Harvard Law School. He entered politics in Cincin-
nati in 1851 where he became an early Republican. He rose to the rank
of major general during the Civil War before his election to Congress in
1864 serving there until elected governor of Ohio in 1867. Hayes gov-
erned astutely and was elevated to the U.S. presidency in 1877 after the
famous “compromise” in the House elected him over popular vote winner
Samuel Tilden. Though he was conscientious and hard-working, his one
term was unspectacular.

HENDERSON, WILLIAM, referred to as “judge” and gentile in Moyle’s
memoirs, was not a prominent figure in Utah history despite Moyle’s
praise of his abilities among notable Democrats. It is possible, however,
that he was referring to Dr. William W. Henderson, a highly respected
Utah educator and ardent Democrat, but Dr. Henderson (1879-1944) was
a devoted Mormon.

HERRICK, JOHN L. (1868-1960), was appointed guide and receptionist
at the Church Administration Building in 1936 and was also bishop of the
Twelfth-Thirteenth Ward. He had served as president of the Western
States Mission (1908-19) and as a banker and insurance man in Ogden.

HICKMAN, WILLIAM (1815-83), famous Utah outlaw and alleged chief
Danite and destroying angel for Brigham Young, gained national atten-
tion because of his role as avenger against troublesome gentiles and
apostate Mormons. In reality, he was little more than a cattle rustler and
a horse thief. He died ingloriously in Lander, Wyoming, of “diarrhoea.”

HISLOP,JOHN (1855-1904), an English stonemason, worked with Moyle
on the Union Pacific Railroad in the 1870s. He subsequently raised a large
family in Huntsville, Utah.

HOOPER, ANNIE (see Annie Hooper Caine)

HOOPER, ELIZABETH (LIBBY) (see Elizabeth [Libby] Hooper Dunbar)
HOOPER, HARRIET (HATTIE) (see Harriet [Hattie] Hooper Young)
HOOPER, MARY (see Mary Hooper Jennings)

HOOPER, WILLIAM H. (1813-82), a former merchant and Mississippi
steamboat captain, represented Utah in four sessions of Congress begin-
ning in 1859. He was a prominent banker and president of ZCMI. As a

329

Biographical Appendix

youth, Moyle was a common visitor in his home and enjoyed the close
friendship of his daughters.

HOOVER, HERBERT (1874-1964), born in Iowa, moved west where he
graduated from Stanford University (1895) as a mining engineer. After
engaging in mining operations all over the world, he served as chair of
several American relief commissions during World War 1 which brought
his appointment as U.S. Secretary of Commerce by Warren Harding in
1921. Maintaining his statesman’s image, he easily won the 1928 Repub-
lican nomination for president and the election in November. The on-
slaught of the Great Depression unfortunately mangled his administra-
tion and he was defeated for reelection by Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. He
subsequently served on numerous public commissions, the most notable
of which were the famous “Hoover Commissions” on government organi-
zation (1947-49, 1953-55).

HOUSTON, D. F. (1866-1940), New York businessman and life insurance
executive, served as Woodrow Wilson’s Secretary of Agriculture for a few
months in 1920 and 1921 and Secretary of the Treasury.

HOWELL, JOSEPH (1856-1918), was born in Brigham City, Utah. Follow-
ing service in the legislature, he was elected as a Republican to Congress
in 1902 and served eight consecutive terms.

HOWELLS, THOMAS F. (1854-1918), was raised in the Fifteenth Ward.
He graduated from the University of Deseret in 1876 and, following a
mission to Great Britain, taught in the ward schools in Salt Lake City and
later in Sugar House and Escalante.

HULL, CORDELL (1872-1955), served for nearly twelve years as Franklin
Roosevelt’s Secretary of State. A Tennessee lawyer, Hull was for many
years in the House and the Senate before his appointment as head of the
State Department where he subsequently drafted the Roosevelt reciprocal
trade program, took a key role in laying the groundwork for the United
Nations, and won the Nobel Peace Prize.

HUNN, THOMAS, was listed by Moyle as president of the Mutual
Improvement Association when it was first organized in the Fifteenth
Ward. Details of Hunn’s life are obscure.

HUTCHINSON, W. R. (c. 1855-1934), received his law degree at the
University of Michigan where he was a classmate of Moyle. He came to
Utah in 1894 and became active in Republican politics.

HYDE, ORSON (1805-78), was a Campbellite pastor who converted to
Mormonism in 1830. He became one of the first apostles of the LDS

330

Biographical Appendix

church in 1835 and traveled extensively as a missionary. Dropped from
the quorum for a time in 1839, Hyde lost the seniority which would
ultimately have made him head of the church in place of John Taylor. He
spent most of his Utah years in Sanpete County and was known for his
forceful oratory.

IVERSON, GUSTAVE A. (1874-1945), came to Utah from Norway as a
child and settled with his family in Ephraim. After a mission to Norway,
he received a law degree at the University of Michigan and entered
practice at Price. From there he entered the state legislature and also
served as president of the Carbon Stake. In 1929 he became an assistant
attorney general of the United States, and at the time of his death was
serving as president of the Eastern States Mission.

IVINS, ANTHONY W. (1852-1934), counselor to HeberJ. Grant, settled
in St. George. After missions to Native Americans and to Mexico, he
became an apostle in 1907 and served as such until Grant, his cousin,
appointed him to the First Presidency in 1921. Ivins was a devout Demo-
crat, and Moyle ascribed to him the apolitical nature of Grant’s regime
prior to 1933 and the advent of Reuben Clark into the leading councils
of the church.

IVINS, H. GRANT (b.1889), a son of Anthony W. Ivins, was appointed
second counselor in the Cottonwood Stake presidency after filling a
five-year mission to Japan. He later became a professor at Brigham Young
University.

JACK, JAMES (1829-1911), from Scotland, was a clerk in the church
president’s office for many years who gained Moyle’s notice because of
his drinking habit.

JENNINGS, MARY HOOPER (1859-1913), the eldest daughter of William
H. Hooper, married Thomas W. Jennings, son of William Jennings,
uniting two of the highest families in the nineteenth-century Salt Lake City
social strata.

JENNINGS, WILLIAM (1823-86), was baptized a Latter-day Saint in 1852
after coming to Salt Lake City from England and marrying a Mormon
woman. Becoming one of the West’s most successful businessmen, Jen-
nings built a mercantile operation which eventually amounted to $2
million annually. He also served a term as mayor of Salt Lake City
(1882-85) and assisted in organizing the Utah Central and Utah Southern
railroads and in founding the Deseret National Bank and ZCMI. His
daughters often entertained young Moyle.

JOHNSON, ELMER W. (1854-1936), grew up in the Fifteenth Ward and

331

Biographical Appendix

332

later served in the Southern States Mission with Moyle. A rancher, he
moved to Mexico in 1887 and remained there until the expulsion of
Mormons in 1912.

JOHNSON, FRED W., was a Rock Springs, Wyoming, Democrat who
managed A1 Smith’s campaign of 1928 in the West. He made his head-
quarters in Salt Lake City.

JONES, FRED, was a youthful companion of Moyle. A son of a “more
important” family, he joined Moyle in sowing some wild oats.

JONES, NATHANIEL V. (1850-1921), born in Salt Lake City, studied law
in the office of Arthur Brown following a mission in the 1870s. He was
admitted to the bar in 1893 and practiced law in Salt Lake City until his
death. Jones was known for his fiery temper and ready fists.

JONES, RICEY, was the Box Elder County attorney who accompanied
Moyle on his reform school tour in 1888.

KEARNS, THOMAS (1862-1918), was born in Upper Canada of Irish
Catholic parentage, grew up in Nebraska, and came to Utah in 1883. With
David Keith, he struck rich silver ore in the Mayflower Mine at Park City
in 1890 after which the Silver King Mining Company was organized. Thus
acquiring wealth, Kearns entered politics and was elected to the U.S.
Senate as a Republican in 1901 serving until 1905. He then traveled
extensively and interviewed Pope Leo XIII in tire Vatican. He had pur-
chased the Salt Lake Tribune in 1901 and published it until his deadt. He
was also instrumental in the bolt of anti-Smoot Republicans in 1904 and
the subsequent formation of the American Party in Utah.

KELLY, JOHN ( 1 82 1-86), entered New York politics in 1 854 and went to
Congress as a Democrat in 1855. He then became sheriff of New York
County and entered Tammany Hall as a protege of Isaac V. Fowler.
Having amassed a tidy fortune from his activities, Kelly reorganized
Tammany in 1871 and for thirteen years af terwards was considered its
autocrat. Failing in his fight against the nomination of Grover Cleveland
for the presidency in 1884, his health and power faded rapidly.

KENNER, SCIPIO AFRICANUS (c. 1850-1913), was admitted to the Utah
bar in 1877 after an apprenticeship under Judge J. G. Sutherland. Al-
though he served at various times as city and county attorney, Kenner was
principally a journalist writing for and editing several Utah newspapers.

KIMBALL, HEBER C. (1801-68), born in Vermont, joined the Mormons
in 1832. A member of Zion’s Camp and one of the first missionaries to
England, Kimball was called to the Quorum of the Twelve in 1835 as one

Biographical Appendix

of its original members. He was first counselor to Brigham Young from
1848 until his death in 1868. Moyle attended his funeral in the Tabernacle.

KIMBALL, J. GOLDEN (1853-1938), a son of Heber C. Kimball, was
appointed to the First Council of Seventy in 1892. Tall, lanky, and full of
folk humor, Kimball became something of a legend in Utah as he
preached his own brand of Mormonism in his high-pitched voice.

KING, WILLIAM H. (1864-1949), was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1916
defeating George Sutherland. King received his law degree from the
University of Michigan in 1887 and practiced in Fillmore and Provo.
Following service in the legislature and as a district judge, he was elected
to Congress for one term in 1897 and then filled the vacant B. H. Roberts
seat from 1900-1901 but was defeated for reelection. In the Senate, King
was noted for his conservatism and his frank opinions. He retired in 1934.

KINGSBURY, JOSEPH T. ( 1 853-1937), joined the faculty of the University
of Deseret in 1877. A noted chemist, Kingsbury served as acting president
of the institution (1892-94) and became president in 1897 serving until
1915. He received his Ph.D. at Illinois Wesleyan University in 1894 and
did extensive work investigating the mineral-producing possibilities of the
Great Salt Lake. Following his presidency, he continued his research and
teaching until his death.

KNIGHT, JOHN M. (1871-1947), served as second counselor to Richard
W. Young in the Ensign Stake presidency (1904-19). He was also a founder
of a pioneer automobile dealership in Salt Lake City which he developed
from his father’s carriage and wagon company. He became president of
the Western States Mission in 1919 and served until 1928 when he became
president of the Ensign Stake. Knight served at various times in the State
Senate and on the Salt Lake City Commission.

LANDON, ALFRED M. (1887-1988), born in Pennsylvania, graduated
LL.D. from Kansas University in 1908. He subsequently became an
independent oil operator, the success of which propelled him into the
governorship of Kansas in 1932. After two terms he ran for U.S. president
on the Republican ticket in 1936 with the endorsement of the Deseret News,
J. Reuben Clark, and Heber J. Grant.

LANEY, HIRAM S. (1859-1932), attended the University of Michigan Law
School with Moyle in the 1880s. He practiced law in Salt Lake City until
1890 when he became police court judge under the newly elected Liberal
Party administration; Laney then practiced law in Nevada and finally
retired to Las Vegas.

LAWRENCE, HENRY W. (1835-1924), joined the LDS church in Canada

333

Biocraphical Appendix

and came to Utah in 1852. A successful businessman, Lawrence entered
politics. He was elected to the Salt Lake City Council in 1868 and became
a prominent member of the Liberal Party. He was subsequently a member
of the first Salt Lake City commission from 1911 to 1915.

LEE, JOHN D. (1812-77), longtime stalwart in the Mormon church, took
a prominent part in the murder of several Arkansas emigrants at Moun-
tain Meadows in southern Utah in 1857. Lee was subsequently excommu-
nicated from the church and was then tried and executed for the famous
massacre. His role in the tragedy notwithstanding, Lee was undoubtedly
a scapegoat being the only person among the many involved who was
executed for the crime.

LINDSAY, BRIGHAM (1877-1957), Henry Lindsay’s youngest son, came
to Utah with the family where he lived in Salt Lake City until his death.

LINDSAY, CORA (see Cora Lindsay Ashton)

LINDSAY, HENRY P. (1824-1902), was a Civil War veteran and member
of the church that Moyle sought out along the Catawba River in North
Carolina in 1880. He later came to Utah where he died in Salt Lake City.

LINDSAY, MILLARD, was Henry P. Lindsay’s eldest son and Moyle’s first
convert in North Carolina. He never came to Utah.

LLOYD, JOHN (1856-1919), was a boyhood acquaintance of Moyle.
Details of his subsequent life in Salt Lake City are obscure.

LODGE, HENRY CABOT (1850-1924), graduated from Harvard Law
School in 1874 and was admitted to the Boston bar in 1875, but he never
practiced, becoming instead editor of the North American Review. He
received a Pli.D. in 1876 in political science and wrote prolifically. His
numerous scholarly works, however, were increasingly tainted with parti-
sanship as time went on and he eventually devoted his full efforts to
politics, being elected to Congress in 1886 and to the Senate in 1893
where he served until his death. Basically a conservative isolationist, he
led the fight in the Senate against ratification of the Treaty of Versailles
with its League of Nations. To Moyle and other Wilson followers, this
sealed him to eternal damnation.

LUND, ANTHON H. (1844-1921), apostle and counselor to Joseph F.
Smith, was born in Denmark and joined the Mormons in Norway in 1857.
Lund arrived in Utah at the age of eighteen, served several missionary
terms in Scandinavia, and became an apostle in 1889. Active as well in
business and civic affairs, he served several terms in the Utah legislature.

334

Biographical Appendix

LUND, CANNON, was Heber J. Grant’s chauffeur during the last years
of the president’s life.

LYMAN, AMASA M. (1813-77), became an apostle in 1842. He later
associated with the Godbeite movement and preached unorthodox doc-
trine on the Atonement. Subsequently dropped from the Quorum of the
Twelve (1867), Lyman was excommunicated from the church in May 1870.

LYMAN, FRANCIS M. (1840-1916), was born in Illinois but moved with
his family to California in 1851. Following a mission, he settled in Utah
and became an apostle in 1880. Lyman was one of the “gumshoers” whom
Moyle accused of using church position to build up the Republican Party
in Utah in the 1890s.

LYMAN, RICHARD R. (1870-196.3), a son of Francis M. Lyman, taught
engineering at the University of Utah prior to obtaining his doctorate in
the field at Cornell in 1905. He distinguished himself as an engineer of
national repute and as a professor at the University of Utah until he
became an apostle in 1918. In 1943 Lyman was excommunicated from
the church for adultery but was rebaptized in 1954.

McADOO, WILLIAM G. (1864-1941), born in Georgia, studied law at the
University of Tennessee. He later moved to California and became
involved in finance. Woodrow Wilson appointed him Secretary of the
Treasury in 1913 in which capacity he also ran the nation’s railroads
during World War I. Moyle’s service as McAdoo’s first assistant brought
them into a close friendship which lasted through the former Secretary’s
two unsuccessful bids for the Democratic presidential nomination (1924
and 1928). He also served in the U.S. Senate (1922-38).

McALLISTER, G. STANLEY (1900-70), was born in Utah but moved to
New York City where he became prominent in business and civic affairs.
He served in numerous church positions in the East including the presi-
dency of the New York Stake. At the time of his death he was a director
of the Bonneville International Corporation, a holding company for the
LDS church, and had played a key role in Mormon business operations
on the east coast.

McCLERNAND, JOHN A. (1812-1900), a member of the Utah Commis-
sion under President Cleveland, was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1832
and entered politics as a Democrat. After serving in Congress (1843-61),
he accepted a commission in the Union Army as brigadier general and
served with unblemished distinction until illness forced him to resign in
1864. He later was circuit judge in Illinois and was Democratic national
chairman in 1876. His favorable report on the Mormons while a member

3.35

Biographical Appendix

of the Utah Commission helped to dispel some of the false concepts about
the territory which prevailed nationally.

McCUNE, A. W. (1849-1927), was born in India, the son of a British
soldier. After his family’s conversion to Mormonism, McCune came to
Utah in 1857 and grew up in Nephi. He early engaged in railroad building
and then mining, and by 1888 had earned fortune enough to move to Salt
Lake City where he dabbled in business, publishing, and ultimately
politics. Though the leader in the balloting, he was unable to achieve a
majority in the deadlocked senatorial election of 1899. He died while
traveling in France.

McCUNE, GEORGE W. (1873-1963), served as president of the Eastern
States Mission of the LDS church from 1919 to 1922 where he worked
closely with Moyle to establish a branch in Washington, D.C. Moyle
appreciated his Democratic sympathies and willingness to ignore the
presence of Reed Smoot in Washington while making policy for the
mission.

McKAY, DAVID O. (1873-1970), became an apostle in 1906 and ninth
president of the LDS church in 1951. Born in Huntsville, Utah, McKay
served a mission to Great Britain in the 1890s following his graduation
from the University of Utah. His career in education was cut short when
he joined the Quorum of the Twelve at the age of thirty-two. Moyle
regarded him as the spiritual head of the church during Grant’s last years
while J. Reuben Clark led in politics and temporal issues.

McKEAN, JAMES B. (1821-79), was a New York lawyer and former
member of Congress who was appointed chief justice of Utah Territory
in 1870. McKean attacked Mormonism with a “judicial crusade” that
eventually resulted in his removal in 1875 for “fanatical and extreme
conduct.” He subsequently practiced law in Salt Lake City until his death.

McKENZIE, DAVID (1833-1912), a Scottish convert, became private
secretary to Brigham Young and subsequently chief clerk in the presi-
dent’s office and bookkeeper for the Trustee-in-Trust and the Presiding
Bishop. Moyle remembered his “typically Scotch” need for alcoholic
refreshment.

McLEAN ANGUS W. (1870-1935), after receiving a law degree from the
University of North Carolina, entered the banking business and was soon
president and director of numerous banking and textile industries in
North Carolina. He also became active in Democratic politics serving on
the national committee (1916-24) and as governor of the state (1925-28).

336

Biographical Appendix

He also served in the U.S. Treasury Department during the Wilson
administration and as director of the War Finance Corporation (191 8-2 1 ).

MARGETTS, PHILLIP (1829-1914), an English convert to Mormonism,
came to Utah in 1850. He was a member of the company that presented
the first play in the Salt Lake Theater in 1862 and remained prominent
in Utah drama for several decades. He had served an LDS mission in the
1850s and his saloon-operating days were forgotten at the time of his
death when he was eulogized as a “faithful high priest.”

MARGETTS, WILLIAM (1865-1945), a popular actor and comedian in
Salt Lake City in the 1880s and 1890s, operated a brewery north of Union
Square. He later moved to California and died there.

MAUGHAN, FRANCIS (see Francis Maughan Vernon)

MAW, HERBERT B. (1893-1990), governor of Utah from 1941 to 1949,
defeated Henry D. Moyle in the Democratic primary of 1940. From 1929
to 1940, Maw was active in Democratic politics as state senator, president
of the senate, and as a leader of the liberal wing of the Utah party. Prior
to his election to the senate, he practiced law and was professor of speech
and dean of men at the University of Utah. He also served as a chaplain
with the 89th Division during World War I.

MELLON, ANDREW W. (1854-1937), served for eleven years (1921-32)
as Secretary of the Treasury. Born in Pennsylvania, he entered his father’s
banking firm at the age of twenty. In 1902 he formed with his brother the
Mellon National Bank which became one of the nation’s most important
financial institutions. At one time some believed Mellon to be involved in
enterprises worth more than $8 billion. He also served for a time in the
1930s as Ambassador to Japan.

MERRILL, JOSEPH F. (1868-1952), was a scientist with degrees from the
University of Michigan and Johns Hopkins. Following a term as LDS
church Commissioner of Education, he became an apostle in 1931.
Though he was known as a Democrat, he shocked Moyle in the 1930s with
his open attacks on Roosevelt and the New Deal.

MINER, AURELIUS (1832-1913), came to Utah to practice law in 1854.
He became a Mormon a year later and subsequently served two LDS
missions to Europe. Miner held numerous public offices in Salt Lake
County including magistrate and prosecuting attorney.

MONSON, JOSEPH (1862-1932), born in Logan, was a prominent Utah
architect and builder. Following an LDS mission to Norway and a term as

337

Biographical Appendix

supervising architect for Utah schools, Monson was elected as a Democrat
to the legislature ultimately serving in both houses.

MONSON, WALTER P. (1875-1935), was president of the Eastern States
Mission of the LDS church during much of Moyle’s first stay in Washing-
ton. After a mission to the Northwest, he was called as president of the
Eastern States in 1913. Returning to Utah in 1919, he engaged in the
lumber business and in 1934 became chief building inspector of Salt Lake
City.

MORGAN, JOHN (1842-94), came to Utah as a school teacher in 1866
and was baptized in 1867. He was called to the Southern States Mission
in 1875 and in 1878 became its president serving many years. He was
appointed a member of the First Council of the Seventy in 1884.

MORGENTHAU, HENRY J„ JR. (1891-1967), was educated at Cornell
and served as Governor Franklin Roosevelt’s conservation commissioner
and chair of his agricultural advisory commission. With Roosevelt’s elec-
tion as president, Morgenthau became Undersecretary of the Treasury
and then Secretary upon the resignation of William Wooden in 1934. He
served until 1945 and retired to his daily farm in New York.

MORLEY, SYLVANUS G. (1883-1948), born in Pennsylvania and reared
in Colorado, did extensive graduate work at Harvard in archeology and
became research associate at the Carnegie Institute. He led numerous
expeditions into Mexico and published extensively particularly on the
Mayan Culture.

MORRIS, ELIAS (1825-98), was born in Wales where he joined the church
in 1849. He emigrated to Utah in 1852 and within a short time had become
one of the leading building contractors in the territory. He became bishop
of the Fifteenth Ward in Salt Lake City in 1890 and subsequently served
as a member of the constitutional convention of 1895.

MORRIS, NF.PHI L. (1870-1943), served in the legislature in the 1890s
following a mission to England. He became president of the Salt Lake
Stake in 1904 and served as such for twenty-five years. A life-long Repub-
lican, Morris nevertheless ran for governor on the Progressive ticket in
1912. His business and civic successes were numerous.

MORRISON, FRANK (1859-1950), born in Ontario, attended law school
at Wake Forest and the University of Chicago and entered the field of
labor relations. In 1897 he became secretary of the American Federation
of Labor seiving until 1939.

MORROW, DWIGHT W. (1873-1931), received a law degree from Co-

338

Biographical Appendix

lumbia University in 1899. He became a partner in theJ.P. Morgan house
in 1914 where he specialized in international loans and continued there
until Calvin Coolidge appointed him Ambassador to Mexico in 1927. His
conciliatory work there brought him into the national limelight and he
consequently resigned in 1930 to run successfully for the U.S. Senate in
New Jersey. J. Reuben Clark succeeded him in Mexico City.

MORTON, “WHISKEY,” was a saloon keeper in Salt Lake City. His
identity beyond his nickname is not apparent.

MOYLE, ALICE EVELYN DINWOODEY (1865-1950), was the daughter
of Henry Dinwoodey and his third wife, Sarah Kinnersley. Moyle met her
in the winter of 1 886-87 and married her on 1 7 November 1887. Educated
at the University of Deseret, she planned a career in drama and continued
her interest in the theater and painting throughout her life. During the
early 1930s, she represented the Women’s Relief Society on the National
Women’s Council. She bore Moyle eight children, six of whom survived
to adulthood.

MOYLE, ALICE EVELYN (see Alice Evelyn Moyle Nelson)

MOYLE, ELIZABETH WOOD (1839-1908), the first wife of James Moyle
and the mother of James H. Moyle, came to Utah in 1858 with her family.
Her father, Daniel Wood, settled in Davis County and founded what is
presently known as Woods Cross. She bore fourteen children, six of whom
survived to adulthood.

MOYLE, GILBERT D. (1898-1961), was the fourth son and fifth child
born to the Moyles. He served an LDS mission to the Eastern states prior
to World War I and then attended Wharton School of Finance at the
University of Pennsylvania. Returning to the West, he became involved in
the oil business and eventually managed an oil company in Idaho and
directed with his brothers the Wasatch Oil Refining Company in Utah.

MOYLE, HENRY (1844-1925), of Alpine, Utah, was the brother ofjames
Moyle. Born in England, he came to Utah in 1856 in the first handcart
company. The family first settled in Salt Lake City but later moved to what
was then called Mountainville in Utah County. Following a mission to
Great Britain in the 1890s, Moyle became patriarch of the Alpine Stake.

MOYLE, HENRY D. (1889-1963), the eldest son of james H. and Alice
Dinwoodey Moyle, received degrees in engineering and geology, and law
degrees from the University of Chicago and Harvard. Following a mission
and service in World War I, he practiced law in Salt Lake City and taught
equity law at the University of Utah. During this period, he engaged
successfully in numerous business activities and was called as president of

339

Biographical Appendix

the Cottonwood Stake (1927) and chairman of the Church Welfare
Committee (1937). In 1947 he became an apostle and then a member of
the First Presidency in 1959.

MOYLE, JAMES (1835-90), was the father of James H. Moyle. He was
baptized in England in 1852 and emigrated in 1854 whereupon he went
to work on the Lion House and then Temple Block as a stonemason. After
his marriage to Elizabeth Wood in 1856, he began a career as a contractor.
In 1875 and after intermittent periods of service on Temple Block,
Brigham Young called him to superintend construction of the temple.
Having taken a second wife in 1870, Moyle went to prison in 1886 for
unlawful cohabitation. His relatively young death and his failure to
achieve much notice because of his humble beginnings inspired his eldest
son, James Henry, to do much of the historical work that culminated in
the preparation of his memoirs.

MOYLE, JAMES D. (1901-83), the Moyles’ fifth son and sixth child,
attended school in Utah and Washington, D.C., and graduated from the
University of Utah. Following a mission to England in the 1920s, he
became with his brothers a director of the Wasatch Oil Refining Company
and its sales manager. Operating several retail and wholesale outlets in
Utah and Idaho for gasoline and butane, he was an early business success
and participated in numerous civic and church projects.

MOYLE, JAMES HUBERT (1891-94), the Moyles’ second son, died sud-
denly at the age of three.

MOYLE, JOHN ROWE (1808-89), the grandfather of James H. Moyle,
joined the LDS church in England in 1851 and came to Utah in 1856 with
the first handcart company. After a brief stay in Salt Lake City, he moved
his family to Mountainville (now Alpine) in Utah County. He was a
stonecutter by trade, worked with his son James on Temple Block, and
gained some renown by building near his home a stone tower for Indian
defense.

MOYLE, JOSEPH E. (1857-1938), was Moyle’s paternal uncle. Nearly the
same age, the two were extremely close in childhood and hunted together
around Alpine, Utah. He inherited the family home in Alpine and lived
there with his wife until his death.

MOYLE, MARGARET ANNA CANNELL (1843-1920), became James
Moyle’s second wife in 1870. Known to James H. as “Aunt Maggie,” she
bore nine children, six of whom survived to adulthood.

340

MOYLE, RICHARD G. (1903-1905), the Moyles’ sixth son and seventh
child, died in infancy.

Biographical Appendix

MOYLE, SARA VIRGINIA (see Sara Virginia Moyle Creer)

MOYLE, STEPHEN L. (1869-1945), was James H. Moyle’s younger
brother. He was founder of the Surety Abstract Company and a member
of the Salt Lake board of appraisers.

MOYLE, WALTER G. (1895-1970), the third son and fourth child of the
Moyles, graduated from the University of Utah and then received a law
degree from the University of Chicago. He also attended Harvard and
served in World War I. Following service on the staff of the attorney
general, he set up practice in Washington, D.C., working principally as a
tax lawyer.

NEBEKER, AQUILA (1859-1933), was born in Salt Lake City. After
attending the University of Deseret, Nebeker joined E. A. Wall in the
mining business but shortly afterwards became a rancher, moving to
Laketown. In 1892 he was elected to the legislature and subsequently
served in the constitutional convention. Nebeker vied unsuccessfully with
Moyle for the Democratic nomination for governor in 1900 and later
served a colorful term as U.S. Marshal in San Juan County, Utah.

NELSON, ALICE EVELYN MOYLE (1893-1979), the first daughter and
third child born to the Moyles, was educated in Utah, Washington, D.C.,
and New York. She received advance degrees in psychology and social
work and served on the staffs of the personnel division of Macy and
Company, the New York Mental Hospital, and the New York City Crime
Prevention Bureau. She married Harry Nelson in 1930 and lived in
Chicago for a time before finally settling in Salt Lake City on the family
estate at Cottonwood.

NELSON, HARRY (1901-88), was an accomplished actor when he met
and married Moyle’s daughter, Evelyn, in New York. He subsequently
worked in the Macy organization and held executive positions with
Montgomery Ward in Chicago and ZCMI in Salt Lake City.

NIBLEY, CHARLES W. (1849-1931), presiding bishop and later coun-
selor to Heber J. Grant, was a Cache Valley businessman prior to his
ecclesiastical calling. Nibley revised the tithing system and traveled exten-
sively as a general authority. He was also a close ally to Reed Smoot.

ODELL, GEORGE T. (1848-1931), born in England, came to Utah with
his Mormon parents in 1861. In the 1880s, in partnership with Heber J.
Grant, he established an implement and vehicle business which ultimately
became the Consolidated Wagon and Machine Company of which Odell
became general manager. In 1919 he became president of the firm

341

Biographical Appendix

342

succeeding Joseph F. Smith. Moyle was a director and general counsel to
the company for many years and a close friend of Odell.

O’LAUGHLIN, JOHN CALLAN (1873-1954), was a noted Waihington
newspaper correspondent who was also active in Progressive anc Repub-
lican party politics. A close associate of Theodore Roosevelt, Olaughlin
wrote several books and articles in praise of Roosevelt and his hand of
Republicanism. He thought little of Reed Smoot.

ORMSBY, OLIVER C. (1844-1916), migrated with his pareits from
Pennsylvania to California in 1852. He came to Salt Lake City in 1861 as
a miner and eventually opened drug stores in Manti and Brighim City.
After subsequently obtaining his M.D. degree from Rush Cdlege in
Chicago, Ormsby practiced medicine in northern Utah, eventually settled
in Logan, and then moved to Rexburg, Idaho, where he lived mtil his
death.

OVERFIELD, CHAUNCY P. (1872-1958), was an aide to Charles Evans
Hughes in New York before 1896 when he moved to Utah for his health.
In Salt Lake City, he associated with the Rio Grande Western Railway and
became active in Democratic politics serving in several party posts. With
the presidential candidacy of Hughes in 1916, however, Overfield
switched parties, became chair of the state Republican Party, and in 1930
was its candidate for the Senate. He was also successful in numerous
business ventures and held high lay positions in the Episcopal church.

PARK, HAMILTON G. (1826-1912), was baptized in Scotland in 1840 and
immigrated to Utah where he became business manager for Brigham
Young. He later served several missions to Great Britain and worked at
ZCMI. He gained notice while serving as a member of the Salt Lake Stake
presidency when he sold his land in the Thirteenth Ward to non-Mormons
for the construction of a hotel.

PARK, JOHN R. (1833-1900), came to Utah in 1861 to teach school. After
serving as president of Deseret University for twenty-five years, he became
the first superintendent of public instruction in the State of Utah. Park
worked closely with Moyle prior to his mission and in 1882 to get him into
the University of Michigan.

PARK, WILLIAM, was a North Carolina farmer whom Moyle baptized
into the church. He later moved with his family to Rigby, Idaho.

PARKER, ALTON B. (1852-1926), practiced law in New York and even-
tually rose in the state court system to its highest seats. He was nominated
for the U.S. presidency in 1904 as a Democrat but was defeated handily

Biographical Appendix

in the election by Theodore Roosevelt. He subsequently practiced law in
New York City until his death.

PARRY, JOHN (1817-82), was baptized in Wales in 1846 and came to Utah
in 1856. He worked intermittently in partnership with James Moyle as a
stonemason until 1877 when he was called to superintend the construc-
tion of the Logan temple. He also served a mission to Great Britain
(1865-69).

PENROSE, CHARLES W. (1832-1925), counselor to Joseph F. Smith and
Heber J. Grant, joined the LDS church in England and came to Utah in
1861. Between missionary terms, Penrose taught school and ultimately
became the editor of the Deseret News. He became an apostle in 1904 and
a member of the First Presidency in 1911.

PIERSON, CHARLES, was a school teacher hired by Daniel Wood to tutor
his children. Pierson taught Moyle’s mother to read and write. He later
practiced law, but additional details of his life are obscure.

PIKE, WALTER R. (1848-1921), came to Utah from England about 1860
where he began to study medicine. He eventually graduated from the
Burlington Medical College in Vermont and then opened a practice in
Salt Lake City but moved shortly afterwards to Provo. He served a term
in the legislature (1892) and became the first director of the state mental
hospital. Pike later retired to St. George.

PLAYER, WILLIAM J. (1831-82), was for many years foreman of the
church blacksmith shop and later of the Salt Lake City Street Railroad.
He was a resident of the Fifteenth Ward and a close associate there and
on Temple Block of James Moyle. Born in England, he immigrated to
Nauvoo in 1841 and to Utah ten years later.

POLLARD, JOSEPH (1819-90), was the sixth bishop of the Fifteenth
Ward, serving from 1877 until his death. Pollard was baptized in England
in 1849 and arrived in Utah in 1857. Moyle remembered Pollard as the
bishop of his youth, although youngjim was almost nineteen when Pollard
succeeded Robert T. Burton.

POWERS, ORLANDO W. (1850-1914), early practiced law in Michigan
and New York, becoming active in local politics. In 1885 he was appointed
associate justice of Utah by the president but resigned to practice law in
Salt Lake City. A leader of the Liberal Party, Powers founded in 1892 the
Tuscarora Society to keep alive the “Democratic-Liberal” cause in Utah.
Following statehood, he became chair of the Democratic state committee
and aspired unsuccessfully to the U.S. Senate.

343

Biographical Appendix

344

PRATT, ORSON (1811-81), an apostle from 1835 until his death, had a
wealth of missionary experiences and was considered one of the finest
speakers and writers in the Mormon church. Additionally, he served as
Church Historian from 1874 to 1881.

PRATT, PARLEY P. (1807-57), saw a Book of Mormon in 1830 and sought
baptism. Ordained an apostle in 1835, he wrote profusely in defense of
the church and quickly became known for his intellectual acumen. Pratt
served several missions for the church, and after coming to Utah took a
leading role in its governance. He was shot and killed in Arkansas while
returning from a mission to the East.

PRIDAY, SAMUEL (1820-1903), a native of England, worked on Temple
Block with James Moyle. During his work as a stonemason there, he was
blinded in an accident and retired to his home in the Fifth Ward where
he subsequently became patriarch of the Salt Lake Stake.

RAWLINS, JOSEPH L. (1850-1926), the son of a Mormon bishop, was
educated under John R. Park whom he followed to the University of
Deseret where he became professor of mathematics in 1870. He then
entered the University of Indiana but returned to Utah without graduat-
ing and resumed his post at the University of Deseret. Licensed to practice
law in 1875, he resigned from the faculty and entered politics first as a
Liberal and then as a Democrat. In 1892 he was elected to Congress and
in 1897 to the Senate. He was influential as a Congressman in obtaining
statehood for Utah and obtaining for the University of Utah a portion of
the Fort Douglas reservation. He resumed private practice in 1903.

RAWLINS, JOSEPH S. (1823-1900), after joining the LDS church in
Illinois, came to Utah in 1848. He served as bishop of the South Cotton-
wood Ward from 1871 to 1900. Joseph L. Rawlins was his son.

RICH, CHARLES C. (1809-83), was baptized in 1832 and quickly distin-
guished himself as a military leader among the Saints. In 1844 Rich took
command of the Nauvoo Legion with the rank of major general. After
coming to Utah, he served briefly as president of the Salt Lake Stake and
then became an apostle in 1849. In 1863 Brigham Young called him to
settle Bear Lake Valley where he died in the town of Paris, Idaho, at the
age of eighty-one.

RICH, EZRA C. (1864-1949), a son of Charles C. Rich, received a medical
degree fromjefferson Medical College in Philadelphia in 1894 after which
he set up practice in Ogden with his brother, Edward I. Rich. He was
considered a pioneer physician in Weber County because of his innova-

Biographical Appendix

tions and opening of the hospital there in 1897. His daughter, Helen, was
married to Moyle’s son Gilbert.

RICHARDS, CHARLES C. (1859-1953), was a son of Franklin D.
Richards. Appointed Secretary of Utah Territory in 1893, he was the first
Mormon to receive a federal executive position in Utah since 1858. He
was admitted to the Utah bar in 1887 and became active in politics first
in the Peoples Party and then in the formation of the Democratic Party,
particularly in Weber County. Moyle counted him as a close associate and
ally throughout his political career.

RICHARDS, FRANKLIN D. (1821-99), was converted by Brigham and
Joseph Young in 1836. He became a member of the Quorum of the Twelve
in 1849 and served two terms as president of the British Mission in the
1850s. Moyle’s primary contact with him was as they both served in the
territorial legislature. In addition, Richards was at various times regent of
the University of Deseret, general in the Utah militia, judge in Weber
County, and Church Historian.

RICHARDS, FRANKLIN S. (1849-1934), a son of Franklin D. Richards,
read law as a young man in Ogden and was admitted to the Utah bar in
1874. Following a mission to Europe, Richards became Salt Lake City
attorney in 1884 serving until 1890 and at the same time acting as attorney
for the church particularly in behalf of polygamists. With the dissolution
of the Peoples Party, Richards rose to the leading councils of the Demo-
cratic Party although his continuing capacity as attorney for the church
restrained his political activity. He was a member of the constitutional
convention of 1895 and represented Joseph F. Smith and other Mormon
witnesses at the Smoot hearings in Washington.

RICHARDS, GEORGE F. (1861-1950), a son of Franklin D. Richards,
became an apostle in 1 906 following service as a stake patriarch. He served
as acting patriarch to the church for five years and in 1945 became
president of the Twelve.

RICHARDS, STEPHEN L. (1879-1959), grew up in Cache Valley and
received a law degree from the University of Chicago in 1904. He then
practiced law in Salt Lake County until he became an apostle at the age
of thirty-seven. From 1951 until his death he served as first counselor to
church president David O. McKay.

RIGDON, SIDNEY (1793-1876), was a Campbellite preacher who con-
verted to Mormonism in Ohio. He served as Joseph Smith’s first counselor
(1833-44) and exerted a powerful influence on the prophet until their
estrangement and Rigdon’s eventual excommunication. David Whitmer,

345

Biographical Appendix

in his interview with Moyle in 1885, attributed to Rigdon much of the
change in the church which occurred after 1835 and blamed him for his
own separation from the Saints.

RITER, W. W. (1838-1922), came to Utah in 1847. After several missions
for the church, he took an active part in building the Utah Central
Railroad and other lines within Utah. Moyle lived near Riter in the
Twelfth-Thirteenth Ward and their families were closely associated.

ROBERTS, BRIGHAM H. (1857-1933), was an important intellectual and
political figure in Utah in addition to his membership on the First Council
of Seventy (1888-1933). His parents joined the LDS church in England
and brought him to Utah in 1866. Called to the Southern States Mission,
he became its president in 1880. He served another mission to England
and became interested in politics. He was elected as a Democrat to
Congress in 1900 but was denied his seat because he was a polygamist.
Like Moses Thatcher, Roberts clashed with his colleagues among the
church leadership because of his devotion to his party, but he backed
down short of losing his position in the councils. He wrote prolifically,
authoring several books including a multi-volume history of Morinonism
and editing the so-called Joseph Smith History of the Church.

ROBINSON, JOSEPH T. (1872-1937), longtime leader of Senate Demo-
crats, had served in the House and as governor of Arkansas. He also ran
on the Democratic ticket with Alfred E. Smith in 1928. Robinson was a
lawyer by profession and at the time of his death was considered to be the
leading contender for a seat on the Supreme Court. Moyle came to know
him well in Washington during World War I.

ROCKWELL, ORRIN PORTER (1815-78), joined the Mormons in 1830.
He served as personal bodyguard to Joseph Smith and then as a hunter
and scout for Orson Pratt’s advance company which entered Salt Lake
Valley in 1847 ahead of Brigham Young. He operated a mail station south
of the city and also served for many years as a deputy marshal. Rockwell’s
exploits as a gunfighter were legendary among the Saints.

ROLAPP, HENRY H. (1860-1936), joined the Mormon church in Den-
mark in 1877 after which he went to England. In 1880 he came to Utah
and began the study of law. Admitted to the Utah bar in 1881, he entered
the University of Michigan where he roomed with Moyle. He then prac-
ticed law in Ogden until he was appointed to the Utah Supreme Court in
1895 and elected district judge in 1896. Reentering private practice in
1905, he engaged in the sugar business and served in numerous church
and civic positions. Rolapp later became president of the Eastern States
Mission and was succeeded by Moyle in 1929.

346

Biographical Appendix

ROOSEVELT, FRANKLIN D. (1882-1945), graduated from Harvard,
studied law at Columbia, and commenced the practice of law in New York
in 1907. Following a term in the New York state senate, he served as
assistant secretary of the navy during the Wilson administration (1913-20).
He then ran for vice president withjames M. Cox on the Democratic ticket
in 1920. Shortly after the campaign he was stricken with polio, but
continued to be active in politics. He nominated Alfred E. Smith for the
presidency in 1924 and 1928 and was himself elected governor of New
York in 1928 and reelected in 1930. He easily defeated Herbert Hoover
in the 1932 presidential campaign and was subsequently elected to the
White House three more times on the tremendous popularity of his
domestic “New Deal’’ and his leadership in World War II.

ROOSEVELT, JAMES, was the first cousin of President Franklin D.
Roosevelt who told him about the Mormon boys who invented Utah’s wide
streets after seeing a fire leap narrow ones in Macon, Georgia. James was
a common name in the large Roosevelt family and it is difficult to
determine the exact identity of this individual.

ROOSEVELT, THEODORE (1858-1919), born in New York City and
graduated from Harvard, read law but turned to the writing of history.
After publishing a few works, he was elected to the New York Assembly
which launched him into public service. After a term as civil service
commissioner under Benjamin Harrison and some traveling and writing,
he was appointed police commissioner in New York City in 1895 and then
as assistant secretary of the navy in 1897. With the outbreak of war in
1898, Roosevelt volunteered for service, gained heroic stature in Cuba,
and was elected governor of New York. He became vice president in 1901
and shortly thereafter acceded to the presidency upon the assassination
of William McKinley. He was elected in his own right in 1904, but retired
in 1909 only to return in an unsuccessful bid for reelection as a Progres-
sive in 1912. His health failing, he nevertheless volunteered for service in
World War I but was refused.

ROPER, DANIEL C. (1867-1943), U.S. Secretary of Commerce from 1933
to 1938, became Moyle’s dose friend during their service together in the
Wilson administration and in the councils of the Democratic Party. Roper
later (1939) served briefly as minister to Canada.

SALMON, WILLIAM W. (1839-1928), was baptized in Scotland and
immigrated to Utah in 1866 where he fought in the Black Hawk War. He
subsequently joined the Salt Lake City police force and became a deputy
city marshal. From 1893 until his death, Salmon worked full-time in the
Salt Lake temple.

Biographical Appendix

SANDBERG, JOHN C. (1837-1909), came to Utah from Sweden in 1875.
His attempt to gain citizenship touched off a test case regarding the
naturalization of Mormons. Sandberg published a Swedish newspaper in
Salt Lake City for many years.

SCANLAN, LAWRENCE (1843-1915), bishop of the Salt Lake Diocese of
the Catholic church, came to Utah as a priest in 1873. Born in Ireland,
Scanlan maintained cordial relations with the Mormons and was elevated
to the bishopric in 1887. Four years later he began construction on the
Cathedral of the Madeleine which ultimately became a Utah landmark.
He also founded Holy Cross Hospital (1875), All Hallows College (1881),
and St. Mary’s Orphanage (1899).

SESSIONS, PERRIGRINE (1814-93), was born in Maine and joined the
LDS church during the Kirtland, Ohio, period. He arrived in Utah in 1847
and founded a community on the site of present-day Bountiful. He had
nine wives and fifty-two children.

SHARP, JEANNETTE (see Jeannette Sharp Ferguson)

SHARP, JOHN (1820-91), came to Utah from Scotland in 1850. He
subcontracted a section of the Union Pacific Railroad through Weber
Canyon and later became a member of the railroad’s board of directors.
Ordained a bishop in 1854, he served as head of the Twentieth Ward for
many years.

SHERIFF, JOHN (JACK) (1853-1932), was baptized in England and came
to Utah in 1869 where he went to work cutting stone for the Salt Lake
temple. He later worked on the Cardston temple and numerous buildings
in Utah including the Salt Lake City and County Building.

SMITH, ALFRED E. (1874-1944), starting out with a clerkship in Tam-
many Hall, progressed gradually to become the New York City party boss,
a power in the state legislature, and four times governor of New York.
Smith campaigned vigorously for the U.S. presidential nomination in
1924 and 1928, succeeding the second time but losing to Herbert Hoover
at the polls. He was famous for his Catholicism, his urban predilections,
and his opposition to Prohibition. All of these things probably combined
to make Moyle one of his greatest opponents among Western Democrats.

SMITH, DAVID A. (1879-1952), a son ofjoseph F. Smith, became coun-
selor to the presiding bishop of the church in 1907 and served in the
bishopric for thirty years.

SMITH, ELIAS A. (1857-1947), was elected probate judge in Salt Lake
County in 1883 and then county selectman in 1889. He was a member of

348

Biographical Appendix

the legislature in 1886 and 1888 and served as president during the latter
term. He eventually went into banking becoming an officer in the Deseret
Savings Bank.

SMITH, GEORGE A. (1817-75), a cousin of the prophet Joseph Smith,
joined the church in 1832 and became an apostle in 1839. He served in
the Nauvoo Legion, in the legislature, as Church Historian, and in 1868
succeeded Heber C. Kimball as Brigham Young’s counselor.

SMITH, GEORGE ALBERT (1870-1951), a son of John Henry Smith, was
the eighth president of the Mormon church. Following a mission to the
Southern States and other religious and civic activities, he became an
apostle in 1903 at the age of thirty-three. Smith was chronically ill after
1909 but acceded to the presidency in 1945. Moyle’s major association
with him was in conjunction with their mutual interest in the preservation
of Utah history.

SMITH, HYRUM M. (1872-1918), a son of Joseph F. Smith, became an
apostle in 1901 at the age of twenty-nine. He died just before his father
at the age of forty-five.

SMITH, JOHN (1832-191 1), was the fourth presiding patriarch of the LDS
church. A son of the martyred Hyrum Smith, he came to Utah in 1858
and became patriarch to the church in 1855. It was from Smith that Moyle
received his patriarchal blessing in 1879.

SMITH, JOHN HENRY (1848-1911), a son of George A. Smith the
apostle, came to Utah in a pioneer company as an infant. Between
missions for the church, Smith contracted two hundred miles of the
Central Pacific Railroad, served on the Salt Lake City Council, and was
elected president of the constitutional convention of 1895. He became an
apostle in 1880 and just prior to his death was appointed second counselor
to his kinsman, Joseph F. Smith. With Francis M. Lyman, Smith was a
“gumshoer” who went out from church headquarters to convert Mormon
Democrats into Republicans.

SMITH, JOSEPH (1805-44), founder and first president of the Mormon
church, claimed to have seen God the Father and Christ in a vision in
1820. More visions followed which culminated in the “translation” of the
Book of Mormon from metal plates and the organization of the new
religion in 1830. Persecuted severely, Smith and his followers moved from
New York to Ohio, and from there to Missouri and Illinois where Smith
was assassinated in 1844.

SMITH, JOSEPH F. (1838-1918), was the son of Hyrum Smith who was
martyred at Carthage, Illinois, in 1844. He became an apostle in 1866 and

349

Biographic. ai, Appkndix

sixth president of the church in 1901. Prior to this, he had made his
Republican sentiments well-known in published polemics and worked
vigorously for Republican success in Utah even during his term as presi-
dent. Moyle clashed with him often over what the Democrat believed was
dereliction of duty to keep separate church and state. Smith’s open
support of Reed Smoot further rankled Moyle as did the prophet’s failure
to take a firm stand in favor of local prohibition in the 1910s.

SMITH, JOSEPH F. (1899-1964), a son of Hyrum M. Smith, was the sixth
presiding patriarch of the church. Prior to his call, he was head of the
speech department at the University of Utah. He was released under
controversial circumstances in 1946.

SMITH, JOSEPH FIELDING (1876-1972), a son of President Joseph F.
Smith, became an apostle in 1910 and tenth president of the church in
1970. He served a mission to England at the turn of the century and then
joined the staff at the Church Historian's Office. He subsequently served
for half a century as Church Historian. It was in this capacity that he gained
Moyle’s respect, though he served in Moyle’s mind as the perfect example
of nepotism among the church leaders.

SMOOT, ALPHA (ALLIE) ELDREDGE (1865-1928), a daughter of Hor-
ace S. Eldredge, married Reed Smoot in 1884 to whom she bore six
children. She was a girlhood companion of Alice Dinwoodey but snubbed
the Moyles in Washington, D.C.

SMOOT, ERNEST W. (1902-69), son of Reed Smoot, lived in the Wash-
ington, D.C., area all of his life. He first was in the steel business and then
operated a statistical service in the capital. The Moyles introduced him to
his first wife.

SMOOT, REED (1862-1941), was manager of the Provo Woolen Mills
when he was called to be an apostle in 1900. He was elected to the Senate
as a Republican in 1903 and served consecutive terms until 1932 when he
was defeated by Elbert Thomas. His attempt to take his seat in 1903
resulted in a four-year investigation of the church which brought Mor-
inonism to the forefront of the public eye. His control over the Utah party
and his use of ecclesiastical position to further political goals incensed
Moyle who nearly defeated him for reelection in 1914. The “Apostle-Sena-
tor” gained national recognition for his leadership and seniority in the
Senate, his most apparent achievements coming in the field of tariff
legislation.

SNOW, FRANKLIN R. (1854-1942), successful businessman and Consoli-
dated Wagon and Machine Company functionary, served with Moyle on

350

Biographical Appendix

the Ensign Stake high council until becoming counselor in the stake
presidency to Richard W. Young in 1918.

SNOW, LEROI C.(1876-1962), a son of Lorenzo Snow, studied shorthand
and typewriting after which he became his father’s private secretary and
chief clerk of the tithing office in 1899. Constantly at his father’s side,
Snow was the subject of rumors that the aging president wanted to make
him an apostle.

SNOW, LORENZO (1814-1901), baptized in Ohio in 1836, took several
missionary assignments until hejoined the Quorum of the Twelve in 1849.
He was a colonizer of Box Elder County, Utah, and served in the territorial
legislature for twenty-nine years. In 1898 he became the fifth president of
the church at the age of eighty-four. Moyle served occasionally as his legal
counsel.

SNOW, ZERA (c.1850-1922), a son of Zerubbabel Snow, moved to Port-
land, Oregon, where he engaged in private law practice until his death.

SNOW, ZERUBBABEL (1809-88), was baptized in Vermont in 1832. A
member of Zion’s Camp, he nevertheless remained in Ohio until the
exodus of the LDS church to the Great Basin. In Utah, Snow was elected
attorney general of the territory in 1869 and served also as a judge.

SPENCE, ALEXANDER M. (1850-1926), served with Moyle in the South-
ern States Mission in 1879. Returning to his home in Wellsville, Utah,
Spence became Cache Valley correspondent for the Deseret News and
finally patriarch of the Hyrurn Stake.

SPENCER, CLARISSA YOUNG (1860-1939), nicknamed “Clint,” married
John D. Spencer in 1882 after a youthful courtship with Moyle. She later
became active in literary circles, writing several books and articles about
her father, Brigham Young, and the romantic histoiy of Utah. Known as
a walking dictionary of Utah facts and figures, she served as the official
guide at the Lion House for many years.

SPENCER, DANIEL S. (1857-1934), a boyhood friend of Moyle, went to
work as a youth on the Utah Central and Utah Southern railroads. In 1917
he became general passenger agent for the Oregon Short Line system.

SPENCER, JOHN D. (1858-1947), graduated from the University of
Deseret in 1875 and became involved in the insurance business, but his
main interests were in cultural activities. He organized opera companies,
dramatic clubs, and art societies in Utah and was the first manager of the
Salt Lake Symphony. His work in encouraging libraries, recreational
facilities, and other civic projects gained him a reputation as one of Utah’s

351

Biographical Appendix

352

most “public-spirited” citizens. At the time of his death, he was the last
remaining son-in-law of Brigham Young, being the widower of Clarissa
Young Spencer.

SPINDEN, HERBERT J. (1879-1958), received his Ph.D. in anthropology
at Harvard in 1909. He was associated with the American Museum of
Natural History prior to becoming curator of Mexican archeology and
ethnology at the Peabody Museum in 1921. After 1929, he served as
curator of American Indian Art and Primitive Cultures at the Brooklyn
Museum. He published extensively on the Mayans and the Indians of
western America.

SPRY, WILLIAM (1864-1929), third governor of the state, was born in
England and came to Utah in 1875. Beginning as a common laborer, he
eventually became director of several leading Utah businesses. Following
an LDS mission to the Southern States, he entered politics in Tooele
County and was elected governor as a Republican in 1908 and served until
1916. President Warren G. Harding named him Commissioner of the
General Land Office in 1921 and he served as such until his death.

STANDING, JOSEPH (1854-79), was killed by a mob near Varnell’s
Station, Georgia, while on his second mission to the Southern States.
Moyle learned of the murder while proselyting in North Carolina.

STEPHENS, FRANK B. (1855-1940), was born in Maine and came to Utah
in 1888 to practice law. He was elected Salt Lake City attorney in 1900 as
a Democrat and remained active in the party until his death. He was also
a thirty-second-degree Mason.

STOCKDALE, WILLIAM, the grandfather of Senator Elbert D. Thomas,
worked as a stonecutter on Temple Block under James Moyle.

STOUT, HOSEA (1810-89), converted to Mormonism in Missouri in 1838
and became a bodyguard to Joseph Smith. He came to Utah in 1848 where
he remained active in martial affairs, eventually serving as judge-advocate
of the Nauvoo Legion. He read law and practiced as an attorney between
missions for the church.

SUTHERLAND, GEORGE ( 1862-1942), was born in England but grew up
in Utah County. He graduated from Brigham Young Academy and
studied law at the University of Michigan where he roomed with Moyle.
Returning to Utah in 1883, he entered the practice of law in Provo and
after several terms in the Utah Legislature was elected to Congress as a
Republican in 1900 and to the U.S. Senate in 1904. After Sutherland was
defeated for reelection by William H. King in 1916, President Warren G.
Harding appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1922. He served on the

Biographical Appendix

court until 1938 gaining a reputation as a strict constructionist and major
opponent of the New Deal.

SWANSON, CLAUDE A. (1862-1939), was a Virginia lawyer who was
elected to Congress in 1893 and except for a term as governor (1906-10),
served without interruption in either the House or Senate until Franklin
Roosevelt named him Secretary of the Navy in 1933. Swanson became
associated with the president during World War I when they were known
as allies in the “big Navy” push.

TALMAGE, JAMES E. (1862-1933), came to Utah from England in 1876.
He studied under Karl G. Maeser at Brigham Young Academy and then
obtained his doctorate at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He sub-
sequently served as president of the University of Utah before leaving
education to become a geological engineer. This career was cut short in
1911 when he became an apostle. Talmage was considered the chief
theologian of the Mormon church for several years penning numerous
books on church doctrine.

TANNER, NATHAN, JR. (1845-1919), grew up in South Cottonwood but
settled in Ogden where he studied and practiced law. He served for a
period as Ogden city attorney and later moved to Idaho where he died.

TAYLOR, A. BRUCE (1853-1924?), a son of John Taylor, was a lawyer in
Salt Lake City when Moyle returned to Utah in 1 885. Taylor never married
and left the church. Further details of his life in Utah are obscure.

TAYLOR, JOHN (1808-87), was born in England and joined the LDS
church in Canada. He became an apostle in 1838 and was seriously
wounded in Carthage Jail during the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum
Smith. Coming to Utah, he published extensively for the church and
served missions in England and France. A staunch advocate of the
continuance of polygamy in the face of government persecution, he
became president of the church at Brigham Young’s death. Moyle re-
ceived a blessing from him prior to his departure for law school in 1882
and also rode in his funeral cortege in 1887.

TAYLOR, JOHN W. (1858-1916), a son ofjohn Taylor, became an apostle
in 1884 but resigned in 1905 over the end of church-sanctioned polygamy.
He was excommunicated in 1911.

TAYLOR, N. W. (1852-84), was born in Surry County, North Carolina,
joined the Mormon church in 1870, and moved to Utah. In 1879 he
returned to his home state as a missionary companion to Moyle. Taylor
subsequently taught school in Weber County until his death.

353

Biographical Appendix

TEASDALE, GEORGE (1831-1907), joined the LDS church in England in
1852. After coming to Utah, he managed the tithing store and became
involved in ZCMI. He became an apostle in 1882 and served several
missions including one to the Southern States.

TENNANT, THOMAS A. (1855-1920), was born in England but came to
Utah with his parents who were Mormon converts. After growing up in
Salt Lake City, where he associated with young Moyle, he settled in
Grantsville.

THATCHER, GEORGE W. (1840-1902), married two of Brigham Young’s
daughters. A brother to Apostle Moses Thatcher, he served in the Utah
War, on the pony express, and later as superintendent of the Utah
Western and Utah Northern railroads. He was Moyle’s chief opponent
for the Democratic nomination for governor in 1900 after which the
Thatchers withheld their open support. This clearly cost Moyle much of
the traditionally Democratic Cache County vote.

THATCHER, GEORGE W.,JR. (1866-1950), accompanied Moyle and the
reformatory study group in 1888 as its secretary. He later held minor
elective positions in Cache County and became a noted leader of the arts,
serving for several years as head of the music department at Utah State
Agricultural College.

THATCHER, MOSES (1842-1909), was a member of the Council of the
Twelve from 1879 to 1896 when he was dropped from that body, partially
because of his political aspirations. During Thatcher’s try for the Senate
in 1897, Moyle threw his support to Joseph L. Rawlins which probably
turned the tide against the former apostle. Thatcher was the subject of
much discussion in Moyle’s memoirs.

THOMAS, ELBERT D. (1883-1953), defeated Reed Smoot in 1932 (as the
Apostle-Senator tried for a sixth term in the Senate) and was reelected in
1938 and 1944. Thomas graduated from the University of Utah in 1906
and, with his wife, served a lengthy LDS mission to Japan. Returning to
Utah in 1912, he began his long career as professor of ancient languages,
political science, and oriental history at the University of Utah. He
received his l’h.D. from the University of California in 1924. Thomas
wrote several books on both scholarly and religious subjects, held numer-
ous church and civic positions, and at the time of his death was serving
high commissioner of the U.S. Trust Territories of the Pacific.

THOMAS, MORONI J. (1855-1946), was a fixture of the Tabernacle
Choir, having been a member for fifty years at the time of his death.

THURMAN, ALLEN G. (1813-95), was born in Virginia but moved as a

354

Biographical Appendix

child to Ohio where he subsequently studied law and was admitted to the
bar in 1835. After serving in Congress and in the state supreme court, he
was elected Senator in 1867 following an unsuccessful bid for governor
against Rutherford B. Hayes. He served two terms in the Senate where he
was known as the “old Roman,” a doctrinaire, strict constructionist and
partisan Jeffersonian Democrat. Defeated for reelection in 1881, Thur-
man traveled extensively and then ran unsuccessfully for vice president
in 1888 with Grover Cleveland. Additionally, he campaigned actively for
the U.S. presidential nomination in 1876, 1880, and 1884.

THURMAN, SAMUEL R. (1850-1941), born in Kentucky, came to Utah
in 1870 where he became a school teacher. He graduated from the
University of Michigan Law School in 1880, then practiced law in Provo
in partnership at various times with David Evans, George Sutherland, and
William H. King. He served five terms in the legislature and as a member
of the constitutional convention. After running unsuccessfully for Con-
gress, he served as chair of the Democratic state committee (1912-16). He
became justice of the Utah Supreme Court in 1817 and served until 1928.

TIl.DEN, SAMUEL ( 1814-86), after sporadic education at Yale and in his
home state of New York, was admitted to the bar in 1841. He became
influential in Democratic politics in New York City and eventually became
governor of the state (1874). As a champion of reform, Tilden catapulted
into the national limelight and was nominated for the presidency in St.
Louis in 1876 on the second ballot. In the election, Tilden won a plurality
of the popular vote but was denied office in the famous “Compromise of
1877” in the House which sent Rutherford B. Hayes to the White House.
Tilden returned to his law practice, but ill health prevented further
political activity.

TORONTO, JOSEPH B. (1854-1933), studied mathematics under W. H.
Rager and Karl G. Maeser, and ancient languages under Joseph L.
Rawlings. He entered West Point in 1875 but resigned shortly to take
Rawlins’s place on the faculty at Deseret University. Becoming professor
of ancient languages, mathematics, and history, Toronto remained at the
university until 1889 when he resigned to travel in Europe and the Middle
East. He resumed his position in 1894 and finally retired in 1904. Known
for his high intellectuality and honesty, Toronto was something of a
legend in Utah.

TULLIDGE, EDWARD W. (1829-94), became a Mormon in England and
came to Utah in 1860. He edited several newspapers and journals in Utah
and wrote prolifically. After associating for a time with the Godbeites, he
joined the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in
Missouri but soon returned to Salt Lake City. Among his numerous books

355

Biographical Appendix

356

were histories of Salt Lake City, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young. He
also authored several plays and founded various periodicals.

TUTTLE, DANIEL S. (1837-1923), was a highly educated Episcopalian
priest who was consecrated “missionary bishop” of Montana, Idaho, and
Utah in 1867. He founded St. Mark’s Church in Salt Lake City and began
construction on the cathedral. Tuttle also founded Rowland Hall School
and St. Mark’s Hospital. In 1886 he left his frontier diocese for a new post
in Missouri and subsequently became presiding bishop of the Episcopal
church (1903).

UNDERWOOD, OSCAR W. (1862-1929), longtime senator from Ala-
bama and Democratic presidential hopeful in 1912 and 1924, authored
the Underwood Tariff of 1913 which was the Wilson administration’s
answer to the protectionism of the previous Republican regimes. Under-
wood was also extremely interested in foreign policy and participated in
several international conferences including the Washington Armament
Conference of 1922. He was born in Kentucky, raised in Minnesota,
educated in Virginia, and first entered Congress in 1895 after practicing
law in Alabama.

VAN CO I'I , RAY (1869-1944), Moyle’s law partner for many years and
also his brother-in-law, graduated from the University of Utah in 1891,
taught school for a period, and then received his law degree from Cornell
in 1895. Van Cott was an ardent Democrat and held various elective and
appointive offices in the state.

VAN COTT, WALDEMAR (1859-1940), attended the University of Michi-
gan Law School with Moyle. Graduating in 1885, he practiced in partner-
ship with George Sutherland and Parley L. Williams and later in various
other firms. He gained recognition in 1903 when he represented Reed
Smoot during the Senate hearings. Van Cott was also a member of the
University of Utah board of regents and a director of several banks and
corporations.

VARNEY, SAMUEL (1806-87), was baptized in Vermont in 1855 and
immigrated to Utah the following year. After a short residence in Lehi,
he moved to the Fifteenth Ward in Salt Lake City where he served as
tithing clerk to bishops Robert Burton and Joseph Pollard.

VERNON, FRANCIS MAUGHAN, wife of Weston Vernon, Brighim
Young College professor and later real estate executive in Logan, sened
as Democratic National Committeewoman opposite Moyle in the 192>s.

WADELL, ISAAC, was a member of the legislature in 1888, but additioial
details of his life are obscure.

Biographical Appendix

WALKER, JOSEPH R„ SR. (1836-1901), born in England, came to Utah
in 1852. In 1858, with his brothers, Walker opened a dry goods store at
Camp Floyd and with the profit from its operation opened a large general
store and a bank in Salt Lake City. Additionally, he engaged in mining
operations principally in Montana and became one of the wealthiest men
in Utah.

WALL, E.A. (1839-1920), born in Indiana, moved west in 1860 where he
became interested in mining and engaged in freighting between Utah and
Montana. Settling first in Idaho, he entered politics and served in the
Idaho legislature. In 1885 he came to Utah and mined at Mercur and
Bingham where he discovered the copper deposits which led to the
formation of the Utah Copper Company. Wall developed other mines in
Utah and Nevada and, by the turn of the century, had amassed a fortune.

WALLACE, HENRY A. (1878-1965), was an agricultural geneticist and
economist in Iowa when he was appointed Secretary of Agriculture by
Franklin Roosevelt. Despite Wallace’s controversial ideas while in the
cabinet, Roosevelt chose him as his running mate in 1940. As vice
president, he traveled widely and became outspoken in his concern for
international social welfare. He became Secretary of Commerce in 1945
but soon broke with Truman over the beginning of the Cold War. Wallace
then bolted the Democratic Party and ran for U.S. president in 1948 on
the Progressive ticket.

WALLACE, WILLIAM R. (1865-1957), highly successful in business,
industry and civic service, served at various times as Democratic state
chairman and national committeeman. He failed in a try for the Senate
nomination in 1934, but his major interest was in the Utah Oil Refining
Company which he founded in 1916. His most noted public endeavors
were in the field of water conservation as he served on various water and
power boards until shortly before his death.

WALSH, THOMAS J. (1859-1933), was admitted to the bar in his home
state of Wisconsin in 1884, but he moved west finally settling in Helena,
Montana, in 1890. After several attempts to gain federal elective office,
he was elected to the Senate as a Democrat in 1912. His career in
Washington was unspectacular until his committee on public lands ex-
posed what became known as the Teapot Dome Scandal (1922-24). He
subsequently served as chair of the Democratic National Conventions of
1924 and 1932. Franklin Roosevelt appointed him U.S. Attorney General
in 1933, but the senator died before he could assume office.

WARRUM, NOBLE (1864-1951), was bom in Indiana and received legal
training at the University of Michigan. Warrum settled in Logan, Utah, in

357

Biographical Appendix

the 1890s from which he went to the legislature and the constitutional
convention. He then became editor of the Salt Lake Herald until its
purchase by Republican interests. In 1914 he was appointed postmaster
in Salt Lake City and later joined the editorial staff of the Salt Lake Tribune.
Moyle counted him as a close ally.

WELLING, MILTON H. (1876-1947), following attendance at the Univer-
sity of Utah and a mission for the I.DS church, became president of the
Malad Stake and later of the Bear River Stake. He was elected to the Utah
legislature in 1911 and then to Congress in 1917, serving until 1921. A
Democrat, he also served as Utah Secretary of State from 1928 to 1936,
following which he became a U.S. Interior Department functionary.

WELLS, CHARLES H. (1870-1945), a son of Daniel H. Wells, was a noted
Utah banker and contractor. He was associated with Moyle in the Utah
Tropical Fruit Company as its treasurer.

WELLS, DANIEL H. (1814-91), was living in Commerce, Illinois, in 1839
when the Mormons moved there and built the city of Nauvoo. Though he
did not join the church until 1846, he served as Nauvoo city councilman,
alderman, university regent, and as general in the Nauvoo Legion. In Utah
he became an apostle and served as Brigham Young’s second counselor
(1857-77). He also served a lengthy term as mayor of Salt Lake City. Moyle
witnessed him in action during the election day riots in 1874 and in
addresses in the Tabernacle and at the School of the Prophets.

WELLS, EMMELINE B. (1828-192 1), was baptized in 1842. When her first
husband deserted her, she joined the household of Newel K. Whitney who
died in 1850. She subsequently married Daniel H. Wells and entered a
literary career dedicated to the advancement of women. Publishing in the
Women’s Exponent and elsewhere, she identified closely with the Relief
Society and became a forceful spokesperson for women’s rights and such
issues as prohibition and suffrage. She was the fourth general president
of the Relief Society.

WELLS, HEBER M. (1859-1938), a son of Daniel H. Wells, became
governor of Utah in 1896 after serving in the Utah constitutional conven-
tion. He was reelected in 1900, defeating Moyle by just over three
thousand votes. Following his two terms as governor, Wells engaged in
banking until 1913 when he was elected Salt Lake City commissioner. He
later worked for Internal Revenue in California before joining the edito-
rial staff of the Salt Lake Herald.

358

WEST, CALEB (1844-1909), was the last territorial governor of Utah. He
was a Confederate veteran who was appointed governor of the territory

Biographical Appendix

by Grover Cleveland in 1885, succeeded by Arthur L. Thomas in 1889,
and then reappointed by Cleveland in 1893. West worked fervently to
prevent Utah statehood and proposed the disfranchisement of Mormons
in Idaho, but nevertheless worked diligently to obtain pardons for polyga-
mous Mormons serving terms in prison. He was also noted for signing
the first bonding measure for Utah in 1888.

WEST, WILBUR, was the LDS mission secretary in the Eastern States
when Moyle assumed the presidency of the mission in 1928.

WHITMER, DAVID (1805-88), came into contact with Mormonism in
1828 when he met Oliver Cowdery in Palmyra. Much of the work on the
Book of Mormon subsequently took place at the home of his father, Peter
Whitmer, Sr. David was baptized by Joseph Smith in 1829 and shortly
afterwards saw the golden plates of the Book of Mormon in the hands of
an angel and in the presence of Smith, Cowdery, and Martin Harris. Thus
numbered among the “three witnesses,” Whitmer became a leading figure
in early Mormonism but was excommunicated in 1838 following a pro-
longed dispute with Smith. In spite of this, he reaffirmed his testimony as
a witness to the golden plates during an interview with Moyle in 1885.

WHITNEY, HELEN KIMBALL (see Helen Kimball Whitney Bourne)

WHITNEY, HORACE G. ( 1858-1920), entered journalism in the footsteps
of his father, Horace K. Whitney. During the 1880s the younger Whitney
was city editor and later manager of the Salt Lake Herald and then went
to work for the Deseret News in the 1890s. As general manager of the News,
he reconditioned its financial operation and increased its circulation
dramatically. He was also secretary-treasurer of the Utah-Idaho Sugar
Company and a prominent patron of the arts in Utah.

WHITNEY, HORACE K. (1823-84), a son of Newel K. Whitney, was a
bookkeeper in the office of Brigham Young. Well-educated and articulate,
yet overly modest, Whitney left to his children the desire for literary and
official distinction.

WHITNEY, ORSON F. (1855-1931), an educator and forensic expert,
served as bishop of the Eighteenth Ward prior to his call to the apostleship
in 1906. He wrote prolifically, including a four-volume History of Utah.

WILLIAMS, PARLEY L. (1842-1936), was born and raised in Illinois and
later moved to Wyoming to practice law. In 1871 he came to Salt Lake
City where he gradually became involved in politics and as attorney for
several railroads. Williams also served several terms in the legislature as
a Democrat.

359

Biographical Appendix

WILLIAMS, WILLIAM N. (1851-1927), was born in Wales and came to
Utah in 1861. After a mission and successful business enterprises, he was
elected to the legislature in 1900 as a Republican.

WILSON, WOODROW (1856-1924), born in Virginia to a Presbyterian
minister, graduated from Princeton in 1879, practiced law in Georgia, and
then entered graduate school at Johns Hopkins University where he
received a Ph.D. in political science in 1886. After teaching at Bryn Mawr
and Wesleyan universities, he joined the faculty at Princeton in 1890.
Following a controversial but brilliant administration as president of the
institution, Wilson was elected governor of Newjersey in 1910 and to the
presidency in 1912. His two terms in the White House need no explana-
tion here, but his failure to secure a ratification of the Treaty of Versailles
with its League of Nations provision seriously damaged his health leading
to what Moyle styled as his “martyrdom.”

WINDER, JOHN R. (1821-1910), who served as first counselor tojoseph
F. Smith (1901-10), joined the LDS church in England and came to Utah
in 1853. After a career as a leather maker and officer in the Nauvoo
Legion, Winder became a counselor in the Presiding Bishopric in 1887
where he served until his call to the First Presidency. Moyle regarded him
as a Democrat but a silent one.

WINES, IRA D. (1844-1923), was a wealthy Lehi cattleman who joined
Moyle and James Chipman in founding the abortive Utah Tropical Fruit
Company in Mexico in 1907.

WISE, JASPER, was among the seventeen persons Moyle baptized in
Burke County, North Carolina. He later moved with his family to Salem,
Oregon.

WITTE, LINDSAY, was a North Carolina farmer whose wife joined the
church. During a threatened mob attack, Witte defended Moyle and his
companion. Moyle saw him again briefly in Winston-Salem as the Utahn
traveled through the South as Assistant Secretary of the Treasuiy.

WOOD, DANIEL (1800-92), was baptized by Brigham Young in Canada
in 1833. He moved with the Saints through Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois,
eventually coming to Utah in 1848. After a brief residence in Salt Lake
City, Wood moved his family to Davis County and founded Woods Cross.
There he lived out his life and prospered as a farmer. He had six wives
and many children, one of whom was Elizabeth, the mother ofjames H.
Moyle.

360

WOOD, ELIZABETH (see Elizabeth Wood Moyle)

Biographical Appendix

WOOD, WILFORD C. (1893-1968), was Moyle’s cousin. A furrier by
trade, Wood owned in addition large tracts of land in Davis County, was
an amateur historian, and maintained a private museum of Mormon
artifacts. The church employed him as a purchasing agent and he was
responsible for the acquisition of numerous Mormon historical sites
around the nation.

WOODIN, WILLIAM H. (1868-1934), was Secretary of the Treasury when
Moyle was appointed Commissioner of Customs. Woodin was born into
a wealthy Pennsylvania family and by 1922 had inherited the presidency
of the American Car and Foundry Company. He was also heavily involved
in numerous other concerns particularly in banking and railroads when
Roosevelt appointed him to the Treasury in 1933. He served only briefly,
however, as ill health forced his resignation in January 1934. He was a
Republican but had supported Alfred E. Smith for the White House in
1928 and 1932.

WOODRUFF, ABRAHAM OWEN (1872-1904), a son of Wilford Wood-
ruff, served a mission in the 1890s and was ordained an apostle in 1897.
He died of smallpox seven years later.

WOODRUFF, WILFORD (1807-98), was fourth president of the LDS
church. Joining the Mormons in New York in 1833, he quickly became
known for his missionary zeal and was ordained an apostle in 1839. To
the aging Woodruff, known for his soft-spoken spirituality, fell the task of
ending church-sanctioned polygamy which he did with the famous mani-
festo of 1890.

WOODS, GEORGE L. (1832-90), was born in Missouri but eventually
made his way to Oregon where he became active in Republican politics.
He was elected governor of the state in 1866. Failing in an attempt at
reelection, Woods was appointed governor of Utah in 1870 and took
office in 1871. During his nearly four years in the territory, he arrogantly
spurned the Mormon leaders, consistently sided with the anti-Mormon
clique, and alienated the bulk of the population with his ill-conceived
diatribes against the church. He failed to achieve reappointment and left
the territory in 1874. Woods later practiced law in San Francisco.

YOUNG, ALFALES (1853-1920), a son of Brigham Young, preceded
Moyle in the University of Michigan Law School, graduating in 1877.
Following his admission to the Utah bar, however, Young rarely practiced
law, devoting his energies instead to journalism. An avid reader, he did
editorial work with Salt Lake City newspapers, the Herald, Democrat, and
Deseret News. Moyle’s reference to Alfales having left the church probably

361

Biographical Appendix

362

came from his marriage to an Episcopalian schoolteacher, Ada Code, in
1884.

YOUNG, ALONZO (1858-1918), a son of Brigham Young, workedn the
ZCMI organization and served on the Ensign Stake high counci with
James H. Moyle.

YOUNG, BRIGHAM (1801-77), was second president of the LDS chtrch.
Acknowledged as one of America’s great colonizers, he led the Mornons
from 1844 until his death and was the dominating presence in Utah
throughout Moyle’s youth. He joined the church in 1832 and becane an
apostle in 1835. In addition to his ecclesiastical duties, he was also
governor of Utah Territory from 1850 to 1858, superintendent of Iidian
affairs from 1851 to 1858, a founder of about 350 communities in tie Far
West, and founder of scores of business enterprises. His more pomlar
fame came because of his many wives and large family. Moyle stood gjard
over his body as it lay in state in 1877 and additionally had many memories
of seeing the prophet in life.

YOUNG, BRIGHAM, JR. (1836-1903), was born in Kirtland, Ohio, and
drove an ox team to Utah in 1847 at the age of twelve. After a brief career
in business, he was ordained an apostle in 1 864 and four years later joined
the Quorum of the Twelve. In 1869 he went to Cache Valley to preside
over the Saints there but returned to Salt Lake City in 1873 to assist his
father. He was indicted for polygamy and spent the 1880s “hiding out.”
In 1890 he was called to preside over the European Mission but returned
to Salt Lake City in 1 893 after all charges against him were dismissed. At
the time of his death, he was president of the Quorum of the Twelve.

YOUNG, BRIGHAM HEBER (1845-1928), was born in Nauvoo and
arrived in the Salt Lake Valley in 1848. There is evidence, as Moyle
indicated, that Heber was ordained an apostle by his father although never
numbered among the general authorities. He worked on the railroad and
in his later years for ZCMI and in the insurance and real estate business.

YOUNG, CLARISSA (CLINT) (see Clarissa Young Spencer)

YOUNG, FERAMORZ LITTLE (1858-81), a son of Brigham Young, died
at the age of twenty-three returning from a mission to Mexico. He received
an appointment to Annapolis in 1874 but resigned after two years. In 1879
he graduated from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York with a
degree in engineering.

YOUNG, HARRIET AMELIA FOLSOM (1830-1910), became the plural
wife of Brigham Young in 1863. It was for her that he built the Gardo
House which subsequently became known as the Amelia Palace.

Biographical Appendix

YOUNG, HARRIET (HATTIE) HOOPER (1861-1939), a youthful ac-
quaintance of Moyle, was the daughter of William H. Hooper. She
married Brigham Young’s son, Willard, in 1882.

YOUNG, JOHN W. (1844-1924), a son of Brigham Young, was ordained
an apostle at the age of eleven but never served on the Quorum of the
Twelve. At nineteen he was appointed assistant counselor in the First
Presidency and subsequently served as his father’s first counselor. His real
interests were in railroad building, and his efforts in this regard attracted
for him widespread notice throughout the West. But by the turn of the
century, he was deeply in debt and trying various schemes to recoup.
Failing completely, Young died while working as an elevator operator in
New York City.

YOUNG, JOSEPH (1797-1881), the brother of Brigham Young, joined the
church in 1832. After service in Zion’s Camp, Young became the second
of the original presidents of the Seventy in 1 835. Persevering through the
early trials of the church, he came to Utah in 1850.

YOUNG, JOSEPH A. (1834-75), a son of Brigham Young, was born in
Kirtland, Ohio, and spent his young adulthood on missions for the LDS
church. He then operated a lumber business, took subcontracts on the
Union Pacific, and supervised construction of the Utah Central Railroad.
Serving several colonizing missions, he organized the United Order in
Sevier County.

YOUNG, JOSEPH DON CARLOS (1855-1938), a son of Brigham Young,
received a degree in engineering in 1879 from Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute in New York. Contributing significantly to Utah architecture.
Young served as architect on the Salt Lake temple during the final phases
of its construction. He also designed the Church Administration Building
and a multitude of other important Utah structures. After a mission to
the Southern States in the 1890s, he taught at Brigham Young Academy
in Provo and continued his profession as an architect in Salt Lake City.

YOUNG, LEGRAND (1840-1921), was a son of Joseph Young (Brigham’s
brother). He preceded Moyle at the University of Michigan Law School
graduating in 1871. He subsequently served as legal counsel to Brigham
Young though his partner was the gentile Parley L. Williams. After
statehood, Young became district judge. Prior to 1891, he was an impor-
tant member of the Peoples Party but took a minimal political role.

YOUNG, OWEN D. (1875-1962), industrialist and monetary expert from
New York, entered the national spotlight from 1919 to 1930 at a series of
international conferences concerning German reparations and the stabi-

363

Biographical Appendix

lization of the German economy. Young rendered “dollar-a-year” sendee
to five presidents but refused to seek public office himself though men-
tioned often as a Democratic presidential possibility. For several years he
was chairman of the board of General Electric and was the first chairman
of the Radio Corporation of America.

YOUNG, RICHARD W. (1858-1919), born in the Beehive House, was the
grandson of Brigham Young through Joseph A. Young. He worked as an
apprentice carpenter on Temple Block and on the railroad prior to his
appointment to West Point. Commissioned in the artillery in 1882, he
then entered Columbia College Law School, graduating in 1884. Follow-
ing a notable career both in the army and in the practice of law in Salt
Lake City, he served with distinction in the Spanish-American War after
which he was tendered the brevet of Brigadier General . In 1 904 he became
the first president of the Ensign Stake in Salt Lake City.

YOUNG, SEYMOUR B. (1837-1924), a son of Joseph Young (Brigham’s
brother), survived as a baby the Haun’s Mill Massacre. After several
missions for the Mormon church, Young entered into the study and
practice of medicine and received his M.D. at the University Medical
College of New York. He was called to the First Council of the Seventy in
1882.

YOUNG, WILLARD (1852-1936), a son of Brigham Young, entered West
Point in 1871 as the first Mormon to enroll in the U.S. Military Academy.
In 1875 he graduated with a commission in the Corps of Engineers and
in 1882 married Harriet (Hattie) Hooper. Among his notable successes
in the army was construction of the Cascade locks on the Columbia River
between 1883 and 1887. He also served in various church and Utah state
positions between his several terms with the military. Young’s going in
and out of the army to take church assignments apparently convinced
Moyle that his life was somewhat less than content.

ZANE, CHARLES S. (1831-1915), first chief justice of the state of Utah,
came to Salt Lake City in 1884 as judge of the territorial supreme court.
He had previously served on the bench in Illinois. Zane failed in an
attempt for a second term as chief justice in 1899 and opened a private
practice in Salt Lake City.

ZANE, JOHN M., a son of Judge Charles S. Zane, was Moyle’s law partner
along with George P. Costigan from 1891 to 1899. Additional details of
his life are obscure.

364

INDEX

Academy Building, 55n29
Adams, Orval, 287-88, 312
African Americans, 9 1
Agricultural College, Utah State, 143,
145, 250

Allen, Clarence E„ 147, 162, 312
Allen James B., xxv
Alpine, Utah, 38-41, 52
Amelia Palace, 60

American Federation of Labor, 203
American history, importance to, xii,
xvi, xviii

Amussen Building, 12
Anderson, W. F„ 138, 139, 312
Anderson, John M., 250, 312
Andersonjames H., 4n7
Angell Truman O., 45, 312
Ann Arbor, Michigan, 112-25
Annapolis (Naval Academy), 14, 108
Arrington, Leonard J., xi-xii, xx, xxv,

1 1 3n 1 1

Arthur Chester A., 6
Asheville, North Carolina, 102
Ashton, Cora Lindsay, 312
Ashton Jedediah W„ 78, 313
Ashton Brigham W., 78, 312
Ashton Edward, 312-13
Ashton Edward T„ 77-78, 96, 313
Assembly Hall, 44

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Rail-
road, 89

Baker Newton D., 207, 230, 313
Baltimore, Maryland, 7
Bamberger, Clarence, 189, 313
Bamberger Interurban Railroad, 76
Bamberger, Simon, 179, 313
Baptists, 102

Barlow James A., 79, 97-98, 313
Barnes William, 46, 313
Barnum Charles, 78, 314
Barton, Joseph, 146, 314
Baskin, R. N., 65, 314
Bean, Willard W„ 244, 314
Beck, Jonas N„ 91, 92, 97, 102, 314
beer, 81

Benson, Ezra T., 303, 314

Berry William S., 103,314

Big Cottonwood Canyon, 75

Bingham Canyon, 72

Bishop Francis M„ 57, 314

Bitter Creek, Wyoming, 51

Bitton, Davis, xxv

Black Jeremiah S., 24, 314-15

blacks in South, 91

Blaine, James G., 124, 315

Bliss, Charles, 90, 91, 315

Book of Mormon: evidence of, 252-

365

Index

59; truth of, xv; Wallace’s assess-
ment of, 282nl3; witnesses to,
125-26

Boone, Edward, 89, 315
Bountiful, Utah, 69

Bourne, Helen Kimball Whitney, 128,

315

Bowen, Albert E., 287-88, 315
Bowery, 44

Bowman, John F., 3, 315
Box Elder County, 146
Boyle, Henry G., 91,315
Brain, Charles J., 100, 315
Brigham Young University, 138
Brigham Young Academy, 250
Brighton, Utah: berries near, 75; cot-
tage in, 138, 39, 289
Brooklyn, 242

Brossard, Edgar B., 208, 265-66, 281,

316

Brown, Arthur, 162, 165, 316
Brown, D. Glenn, 250-51, 316
Bryan, William Jennings, 6, 194, 227,
236, 316

Burke County, North Carolina, 92, 98
Burt, Andrew, 134,316
Burton, Lafayette G., 125, 316
Burton Robert T., 60, 109, 125, 316
Burton, John H., 125, 316
Burton, Hosea M., 78, 316
Bussel, James, 10, 317
Butcherville, 87
Butler, Benjamin F., 122, 317
Bywater, George, 68, 317
Bywater, Joseph G., 78, 317

Cache County, 145, 176-77
Cahoon, Andrew, 48, 318
Caine, Annie Hooper, 129, 318
Caine, John T„ 158,318

California Corrals, 72
Callis, Charles A., 103, 318
Callister, Edward H., 4n7
Calvin John, 30

campaign of 1900, 176-77, 263
campaign of 1904, 177-78, 263
campaign of 1908, 194
campaign of 1914, 263
campaign of 1928, 236-37
Cannell, Margaret Anna. See Margaret
Anna Cannell Moyle
Cannon, Abraham H., 298, 301, 318
Cannon, Frank J.: as senator, 165;

childhood friendship of, 61; com-
pared to Roberts, 162; departure
from Utah of, 122; life of, 318-
19, voting for, 224
Cannon, John M., 108, 319
Cannon, Joseph J., 191, 240, 319
Cannon, Angus M., 108-9, 123, 171,
318

Cannon, George Q.: abilities of, 34,
108-9, 174; as delegate, 117; as
political master, 169-70; aspira-
tions of, 298, 300-1; at Gardo
House, 149-52; blessing of, 1 10-
11; death of, 173, 175; life of,

319; presence of, 132; Republi-
canism of, 156; senate campaign
of, 174

Cannon, George M., 14, 319
Capitol Hill (Utah), 70, 89
Carlton, Ambrose B., 157, 319
Carnegie Institute, 252, 256-57
carpetbaggers, 24, 155-57
Carver, Thomas Nixon, 54, 319-20
Catawba River, ministry along, 95-98
Catholic church, 30, 66, 307
Charlotte, North Carolina, 100
Chattanooga, Tennessee, 90-91
Chicago, 121-24

366

Index

Chichen Itza, 252
Chipman, James, 253, 320
Cholula, Mexico, 253
Christian Science, 189
church: animosity of, to New Deal,
279-80; change in, 21-22; conser-
vatism in, 21-23, 288; courts, 10-
11; devotion to, 17-21, 116-20;
district schools of, 55-56; divine
guidance of, 33-35; in Washing-
ton, 208-10; law and, 109-11, 135-
37; nature of, hierarchy, 22-23,
291-308; opposition to, in Michi-
gan, 117; opposition of, 105; per-
secution of, xiv, 63-64, 101-4;
politicalism in, 172-74, 225-28;
positions in, 239-40; Republicans
persecute, 155-60; truth of, 36
Church Historical Department, xi,
xvi, xxv

church leadership: and end of Peo-
ples party, 151-52; assessment of,
291-308; attacks on Democracy,
286-88; conservatism of, 21-23,
29; errors of, 29-31, 35, 187;
hard experience with, 185-88; in-
heritance of, 291-308; interfer-
ence in politics of, 3-4, 7, 23-24;
opposition of, to F.D.R., 282-88;
patterns of, 31-33; Republican-
ism of, 3-4, 171, 194-96, 216-17;
shift to GOP of, 260-61; support
of, for GOP (1904), 177; weak-
nesses of, 35, 306-8; wealth of,

23, 29

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints. See church

Church Security Program, 277-80, 282
City and County Building, 73
City Creek, 7 1

Clark Diagramming System, 55
Clark John, 60, 320
Clark, Joshua Reuben, Jr.: as ambassa-
dor to Mexico, 254-55; called to

First Presidency, 173; career of,
36; influence of, xxiv, 282-88; in-
novations of, 209; life of, 320; op-
position of, to F.D.R., 26-27; po-
litical errors of, 32-33; partisan-
ship of, 173-74

Clawson, Hiram, 24, 158, 320
Clawson, Rudger, 214, 306, 320
Cleveland, Grover: support of, for

Utah, 24, 155-56, 194; life of, 320-
21; nominated for president, 6,
30, 121-24; tariff and, 196
Clift, Francis D. (Dan), 72, 321
Clift House, 53
Coinage Commission, 199
Columbia Broadcasting Company, 250
Communism, 29
Con Wagon Affair, 188-90
Confederacy, 14n22
Consolidated Wagon and Machine
Company, 3, 188-90
Coolidge, Calvin, 235, 283, 321
Corinne, Utah, 51-52
Corinth, Mississippi, 90
Cornwall, England, 97
Cortez, Hernan, 258
Costigan, George P., 321
Cottonwood, home at, 72, 107, 138,
214, 289

Council House, 55n29, 57
county attorney. Salt Lake, elected as,
xv

courts, church, 10-11

Cowdery, Oliver, 126, 321

Cowley, Matthias F., 303-4, 322

Cowley, Matthew, xiii, 321-22

Cox, James M., 6

Creer, Frank B., 322

Creer, Sara Virginia Moyle, x, xi, xii,

2, 138, 322

Cuernavaca, Mexico, 254-55

367

Index

Cullen Hotel, 53-54
Cummings, Janies W., 79, 322
Cummings, Homer S., 230, 322
currency reform, 201-5
Customs Bureau, Moyle heads, xv, 33-
34, 246, 265-73
Cutler, John C., 322

Daniels, Josephus, 207, 226, 322-23
Darke, Sidney W„ 108, 323
David (biblical), 171-72, 286
Davis, Jefferson, 14n22
Davis, John W., 6, 234, 323
Davis County, 145
deal for statehood, 157-60
Dee, Thomas D, 323
Democratic National conventions, 6,
30, 212-24, 196-97, 229, 233
Democratic party: church opposition
to, 282-84; correctness of 216-19;
devotion to, xii, xiv, xv, 114, 148-
52; difficulties of, in Utah, 153-
54; early loyalty to, 122-23; fa-
vors of, 2 1 1 ; intimacy with lead-
ers of, xvi; Mormons
traditionally support, 162-66;
260-61; support of Utah by, 155-
60

Democratic State Conventions, 23, 30
Denby, Edwin, 323
Denver, 89

Denver and Rio Grande Station, 161
Depression, Great, 87, 249
Dern, George H., 275-76, 323
Deseret Agricultural and Manufactur-
ing Association, 141
Deseret Hospital, 54
Deseret Livestock Company, 49n21
Deseret Savings Bank, 174
Deseret National Bank, 24

Deseret University, 54-57, 107, 112,
128

Deseret News : articles of, 240; attacks
of, 239; attacks of, on League,

283- 84; Penrose editor of, 158-
59; “neutrality” of, 171, 279-80,

284- 88; playwriter for, 49; poli-
cies of, 4-5; 192; office of, 70; op-
position of, to F.D.R., xviin4, 27-
29, 196, 226, 260-61

Dewey, Thomas E., 28
Dinwoodey, Henry, 86, 129, 137, 214,

323

Dinwoodey Furniture, 49
Dinwoodey, Alice Evelyn. See Alice
Evelyn Dinwoodey Moyle,

Dixie wine, 81

Doheny, Edward L„ 232, 234, 235,

324

Dover, Joseph R., 46, 324
Dunbar, Elizabeth (Libby) Hooper,

59, 128, 324

Dunbar, David C., 128, 324
Duncanson, Mary, 10, 324
Dwyer Robert J., 82n70

Eagle Gate, 70-71

Eastern States Mission: building pro-
gram in, 246-49; description of,
242-46; innovation in, 250-52,
258-69; president of, xv, 19-20,

33, 171, 155-160, 209, 239-64
Eberle, Myrna, x
Eccles, Henry, 45, 324
Eccles, Marriner S., 274-75, 324-25
editorial procedures, x, xxi, xxiii-xxv
Edmunds Act (1882), 155
Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887), 155
Eighteenth Ward, 16n25, 17, 71
Eldredge, Allie. See Allie Eldredge
Smoot

election riot of 1874, 64-65

368

Index

Endowment House, 79, 124
Englebrecht liquor case, 65
English Mormons, 88
Ensign Stake, xv, 136, 171, 239
Ephra : m, Utah, 147
Episcopal church, 66
Evans, David, 119

Evans, John Henry, xviii-xix, xx, 1-2, 5,
325

family history, devotion to, xviii
Farley, James A., 265, 325
Farr, Aaron F„ 175, 325
Faust, H.J. (Doc), 73, 325
Faust Livery Stable, 73
Federal Reserve Board, 213, 218
Federal Bunch, 4, 160, 190-94
Federal Heights, 71, 87
Ferguson, Fergus, 117-18, 325
Ferguson, Jeannette Sharp, 1 18, 326
Fifteenth Ward: farewell in, 95; first
gentile in, 13; growing up in, xiv,
76-80; leaders of, 70; lowly status
of, 17, 108, 124-25; residents of,
63; social status in, 59-60
Finance Corporation, U.S., 228
Folsom, William, 49-50, 326
Fullmer, Eugene B., 46, 326

Gardo House Conference, 148-52
Garfield, James A., 6
Gates, Thomas S., 254, 326
Gathering, The, 86-88
Genealogical and Historical Associa-
tion, James Moyle, xii, xxv
genealogy, devotion to, xviii
General Electric, 186
gentiles: conflict with Mormons, 7, 63-
67, 74, 148-52; first, in Fifteenth
Ward, 82; in Utah, 11,13

Gibbs, George F., 34n44, 326
Gibbs letter, 34
Gillespie, Peter, 38, 45-46, 326
Glass, Carter, 204-5, 226, 230, 237,
274, 326

Gorgas, William C., 206, 327
governor, races for, xv, 105, 176-78
Grant, George D., 92, 327
Grant, Heber J.: ability of, to raise

money, 34-35; assessment of, 301-
3, 306-7; becomes president,

173; call from, 240, 242; car ride
with, 2-5; compared to Smith,

188; defense of Smoot of, 221-
22; Democracy of, 261; errors of,
forgotten, 187; Federal Bunch
and, 160; greatness of, xviin4;
John W. Young and, 296; League
and, 222, 223-24; letters of, on
Smoot, 216-25; memories of, 71;
parentage of, 32; political ideas
of, 282-88; prejudice of, against
F.D.R., 25-27, 288; prosperity un-
der, 8; resistance of, to Washing-
ton branch, 209; reverence for,
xiv; silence of, on politics, 160;
spirituality of, 305; Sutherland
and, 115; visit of, to Washington,
212; voting record of, 282-83;
Word of Wisdom and, 134
Grant, Jedediah M„ 32, 92, 302
Grant, Joshua, 92
Grant, Rachel Ivins, 302
Griggs, Thomas C., 80, 327
“gumshoers,” 153-54, 160-61

Hague, Frank, 230-31, 327
Haines, Harry, 14, 48, 51, 56, 327
Hamengog, 40

Hampton, Benjamin, 81, 98-99, 138
Harding, Warren G„ 6, 201, 228, 283,
328

Harding, William P.G., 213, 328

369

Index

Harker, Benjamin, 91, 328
Harris, Fisher, 162, 328
Harris, Martin, 328
Harrisville, Utah, 91
Harvard University, 252
Haslam, John R„ 115, 328-29
Haun’s Mill Massacre, 1 19
Havana, 255

Hayes, Rutherford B., 329
hazing, college, 116
Henderson, William, 162, 163, 329
Herrick, John L„ 3, 329
Hickman, William, 72, 329
Hinckley, Gordon B., xx, ln2
Hislop, John, 51, 329
Historical Department of the LDS

church. See Church Historical De-
partment

Hooper, Annie. See Annie Hooper
Caine

Hooper Building, 131
Hooper, Elizabeth (Libby). See Eliza-
beth (Libby) Hooper Dunbar
Hooper, Harriet (Hattie). See Harriet
(Hattie) Hooper Young
Hooper, Mary. See Mary Hooper Jen-
nings

Hooper, William H„ 58-59, 60, 329-30

Hoover, Herbert, xviin4, 330

hotels in Salt Lake City, 53-54

Hotel Utah, 81, 200

Hot Spring Lake, 76

Houston, D.F., 205, 330

Howell, Joseph, 147, 162, 330

Howells, Thomas F., 46, 131-32, 330

Huber, Pauline, xxv

Hull, Cordell, 227, 230, 276-77, 330

Hunn, Thomas, 80, 330

Hussey Bank, 73

Hutchinson, W.R., 120, 330

Hyde, Orson, 44, 330-1

Independence Hall, 74
Indians, 39, 70, 74-76, 115
Internal Revenue Service, 228
Interurban Railroad, 161
Iverson, Gustave A., 281, 331
Ivins Anthony W.: Democracy of, xvii,
224, 261, 262, 282, 286; life of,
331; qualities of, 32, 173, 246
Ivins, H. Grant, 138, 331

Jack, James, 49, 331
Jackson, Andrew, 232
Jefferson, Thomas, 231, 232, 280
Jennings, Mary Hooper, 59, 331
Jennings, Thomas W., 59
Jennings, William, 59, 60, 331
Jews, 238

Jim Brown’s Hole, 77
Johnson, Andrew, 6
Johnson, Elmer W. (Buttermilk), >0,
100, 331-32

Johnson, Fred W., 236, 332
Johnston's Army, 85
“Jones-Cannon flare-up,” 123
Jones, Fred, 78, 332
Jones, Nathaniel V., 65, 123, 332
Jones, Ricey, 146, 332
Jordan River, 76-77
Judd, Mary Grant, 5
Juvenile Instructor , 8

Kansas City, 89

Kaysville, Utah, 52

Kearns, Thomas, 174, 200, 332

Keller, Laree, x

Kelly, John, 332

Kenner, Scipio Africanus, 108

Kimball, Heber C., 37, 44, 71, 332-3

370

Kimball, J. Golden, 286, 333
Kimball, Jim, xxv

King, William H.: as senator, 165; as-
sessment of, 162, 184-85, 186;
jobs of, 147; lack of support
from, 179; life of, 333; Smoot
and, 210; urges Moyle to Wash-
ington, 199

Kingsbury, Joseph T., 57, 333
Knight, John M„ 223, 333
Knox, Philander P., 284nl6
Kulturkampf, xvi

Lamont, Thomas W„ 217
Landon, Alfred M., 333
Laney, Hiram S., 1 19, 333
law in early Utah, 135-37
Lawrence, Henry W., 138, 333-34
Law School, University of Michigan,
xiv-xv, 107-24
Layton, Utah, 52
LDS church. See church
League of Nations: Grant and, 222,
223-24, 283-84; opponents of,
232; Smoot and, 218-19
Lee John D., 115, 334
legal profession: in Utah, 63; Mormon
attitudes toward, 10-11, 13, 14;
Mormons in, 107-8
legislature of 1888, 131, 140-47
Liberal party: opposed to, 31; Fer-
guson in, 118; legislature and,
143; role of, 148-52; Sutherland
and, 115; victory of, (1890), 144,
146, 149, 158
Liberty Loans, 102, 207
Lincoln, Abraham, 6, 13, 63, 164,

232, 280

Lindsay, Brigham, 96-97, 334
Lindsay, Cora. See Cora Lindsay
Ashton

Lindsay, Henry P„ 92, 95-98, 241, 334

Lindsay, Millard, 96, 334
“Liquor Deal,” 190-94
liquor in Utah, 42, 47-50
Little Cottonwood Canyon, 71-72
Lloyd, John, 78, 334
Lodge, Heniy Cabot, 225, 334
Logan, Utah, 167, 169
Lund, Anthon H., 147, 173, 334
Lund, Cannon, 3, 335
Luther, Martin, 30
Lyman, Amasa M., 303, 335
Lyman, Francis M.: activities of, toler-
ated, 173; charges against, 160-
61; life of, 335, partisanship of,

3, 23, 224; promotes Republican-
ism, 153-54, 166-67; son of, 303
Lyman, Richard R., 301, 303, 335

Macon, Georgia, 266
Madero, Francisco, 253
Manifesto (1890), 135, 155
Mansion House (Nauvoo), 292
McAdoo, William G., appoints Moyle
as assistant, xv, 199-201; friend-
ship of, 6, 184, 186; life of, 335;
on currency reform, 201-5; presi-
dential campaign of, 207-8, 226-
31, 231-37; work of, 206-7
McCallister, G. Stanley, 250, 335
McClernand, John A., 157, 335-36
McCune, A.W., 175. 195, 336
McCune, George W., 210, 336
McDaniels Family (North Carolina),
102

McDowell County, North Carolina,
100

McGuffey Readers, 55
McKay, David O., 31, 33, 191, 276,
306, 336

McKean, James B, 65, 336
McKenzie, David, 49, 336

Index

McKinley, William, 6, 222
McLean, Angus W., 228, 336-37
Margetts, Phillip, 48-49, 50, 337
Margetts, William, 48, 337
Maughan, Francis. See Francis
Maughan Vernon
medicine in Utah, 9-10
Mellon, Andrew W„ 205, 228-29, 337
Merida, Mexico, 255
Merrill, Joseph F., 31, 287, 303, 337
Mexico, trips to, 252-59
Michigan, University of, xiv-xv, 19,
106-24, 148
Milwaukee, 120
Miner, Aurelius, 108, 1 1 1, 337
Mississippi River, 89
Mitla, Mexico, 257-58
modesty, at Great Salt Lake, 298-99
Monson, Joseph, 209, 337-38
Monson, Walter P., 209, 338
Monte Albans (Mexico), 257
morality in Utah, 70
Morgan’s College, 56
Morgan, John, 91, 99, 338
Morganton, North Carolina, 95

Morgenthau, Henry J., Jr., xvi, 271-75,
338

Morley, Sylvanus G„ 252, 256, 338
Mormon, Book of. See Book of Mor-
mon

Mormon church/Mormons. See
church

Mormon culture: influence of, on poli-
tics, ix; life in, 81-84; professions
in, 62-63; trends in, 8-11
Mormon History Trust Fund, xi, xii
Mormon leaders. See church leaders
Mormon War, 85
Morrill Act (1862), 143
Morris, Elias, 60, 338

Morris, Nephi L„ 191, 192, 338
Morrison, Frank, 203, 338
Morrow, Dwight W., 254-55, 338-39
Morton, “Whiskey,” 48, 50, 339
Moscow Conference of Foreign Minis-
ters, 276n6

Mt. Pisgah, North Carolina, 100
Mountain Meadows Massacre, 114-15
Mount Airie, North Carolina, 91

Moyle, Alice Evelyn. See Alice Evelyn
Moyle Nelson

Moyle, Alice Evelyn Dinwoodey: activi-
ties of, xix, 2, 181, 229; friends
of, 206, 277; in Mexico, 252-59;
life of, 339; retirement and, 289;
promise to, on polygamy, 135;
Smoots and, 210; wedding of,
128-29

Moyle, Elizabeth Wood: attributes of,
10, 67-70, 77; life of, 339; mar-
ries, 37; social status of, 59-60;
strictness of, 78; Indians and, 74-
75; travels to Alpine, 39

Moyle family, ix-xi, xix, 1, 11, 97
Moyle, Gilbert D„ 214, 240, 339
Moyle, Henry, 52, 339
Moyle, Henry D., xx, 33, 196, 214,

242, 278nl0, 339-40
Moyle, James: builds jail, 41-43; devo-
tion of, to family history, xviii;
education encouraged by, 56;
mission urged by, 88; Haslam
and, 1 15; health of, 244; life of,
340; marriage of, 37; occupation
of, 38; respect of, 66; social
status of, 12-13, 16-17, 59-60; plu-
ral wife of, xiv, 67-68; interview
with Whitmer urged by, 125;
wages given to, 80; work on rail-
road of, 51; work on temple of,
43-47

Moyle, James D., x-xii, xxv, 138, 240,
252, 254-59, 340

Index

Moyle, James Henry: baptism of, 37;
birth of, xiv, 37; brief biography
of, xiii-xxi; death of, xx; educa-
tion of, 51, 54-61, 107-24; temple
endowment of, 79; history of, 1-
36; homes of, 137-40, 289; invest-
ments of, 289; marriage of, 127-
29; old age of, xix-xx; ordained
deacon, 78-79; ordained seventy,
79; papers of, xi, xvi, xxiii; patri-
archal blessing of, 79-80; political
career of, xv; retirement of, xviii-
xix, 288-89; writings of, x, xi-xii,
xx-xxi, xxiii-xxv; youth of, xiv, 37-
84; youthful ambitions of, 13-15
—attributes: appearance, xiii, xvi;
characteristics, xiii-xxi, 15; deter-
mination, 61-63; diffidence, 58-61;
health, 124; intimacy with Demo-
cratic leaders, xvi; intimacy with
Mormon leaders, xvii; finger lost,
41

—endeavors: assistant treasury sec-
retary, xv, 5, 102, 185, 186, 199-
208, 228-29; church positions, 239-
40; city/county attorney, 131-34,
140; customs commissioner, xv,
33-34, 265-73; DNC, xv; early ca-
reer, 131-34; high councilman, xv,
171; law school, xiv-xv, 127-28,
131; mission, xiv, 19, 88-105; mis-
sion president, xv, 171, 239-64;
railroad worker, 51; special assis-
tant to treasury secretary, xi, xv-
xvi, 273-89; temple builder, 43-47
—philosophy: allegiance to Demo-
cratic party, xii, xiv, xvii, 150-51,
225-29; conflicts with church lead-
ers, 105, 171; criticisms of Repub-
lican party, xii, xiv; devotion to
F.D.R., xvi, 259-60; devotion to
Mormonism, xii, xiv, xvii, 158-59;
faith, 20; insights, ix-x, xiv, 237-38;
motives, 35-36; tariff, xv, 226-27,
237, 260-63; testimony, 103-5, 135,
307-9, 280-82

Moyle, James Hubert, 340
Moyle, John Rowe, 38-40, 44, 340
Moyle, Joseph E., 39, 40, 340
Moyle, Louise Covey, 254
Moyle, Margaret Anna (Maggie) Can-
nell, 67-68, 340
Moyle, Phillippa Beers, 89
Moyle, Richard G., 340
Moyle, Sara Virginia. See Sara Virginia
Moyle Creer

Moyle, Stephen L., 215, 341
Moyle, Walter G„ 253, 341
Mulvay, Jill, xxv
Murray, Utah, 48, 56
Mutual Improvement Association, 80

National Cathedral, 233
Nauvoo, Illinois, 46
Nauvoo Legion, 141
Nebeker, Aquila, 176, 341
Nelson, Alice Evelyn Moyle, x-xii, xxv,
189n30, 232n35, 241, 341
Nelson, Harry, 341
Nephi, Utah, 146
Nest, The, 92

New Deal: church opposition to, 282-
84; devotion to, xvi; revolution
of, 141

Newton, Utah, 91
New York, church in, 242-44, 249
New York City: depression in, 87; poli-
tics in, 121; sojourn in, xv
New York Post, 217, 222
New York Stake, 249
Nibley, Charles W., 191, 192, 240, 246
North Carolina: drinking habits in,
168; mission in, xiv, 88-105

Oaxaca, Mexico, 257
Odell, George T„ 189, 341-42

373

Index

Ogden, Utah, 51, 143
O’Laughlin, John Callan, 216, 342
Orsmby, Oliver C., 39, 342
Overfield, Chauncey P., 342
Overland Stage, 73

Palmyra, New York, 243-46
Panama Canal, 206
Panic of 1893, 11, 136-37
Pantone, Lcsli, x
Park City, Utah, 174
Park, Hamilton G., 74, 342
Park, John R„ 54-57, 1 12, 342
Park, William, 98, 100, 342
Parker, Alton B„ 177, 196, 342-43
Parley’s Canyon, 3
Parry John, 38, 343
Payson, Utah, 91
Pennsylvania, University of, 254
Penrose, Charles W., 4, 95, 158, 173,
343

Peoples party: allegiance to, 30-31,
121; disbandonment of, xv, 148-
52; early activity in, 131; legisla-
ture and, 143; Richards leads,
162-63; younger element of, 144-
45

Peter (biblical), 286
Philadelphia Mint, 199
Pierson, Charles, 69, 76, 343
Pike, Walter R„ 38, 343
Pinnios grammar system, 55
Pioneers, poverty of, 86-88
Player William J., 46, 343
plural marriage. See polygamy
Pollard

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Mormon Democrat: The Religious and Political Memoirs of James Henry Moyle"

See other formats